Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. And so, Mr. President, as I stated early in my remarks, how the amendment is drafted, and what the amendment says, makes all the difference. It's not good enough just to check off the boxes. That's why I urge the adoption of our amendment. Exhibit 1 Kaiser Permanente, Washington, DC, July 7, 1999. Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Graham: Since 1996, Kaiser Permanente has supported the passage of federal legislation embracing the Prudent Lay Person concept, which requires insurance coverage of emergency services provided to people who reasonably expect they have a life or limb threatening emergency. In connection with this, we support a requirement that the emergency physician or provider communicate with the health plan at the point where the patient becomes stabilized. This will allow for coordination of post-stabilization care for the patient, including further tests and necessary follow-up care. These concepts are contained in several bills currently pending before Congress. I should note, however, that our favoring of this language should not imply endorsement in its entirety of any specific bill that deals with other issues. As a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with its ensuing regulations applicable to Medicare + Choice and Medicaid enrollees and the Executive Order applying the President's Advisory Commission's Bill of Rights to all federal employees, approximately 30 million Americans are now the beneficiaries of a financial incentive to emergency departments to communicate with the patient's health plan after the patient is stabilized. This helps to ensure that the patient's care is appropriate, coordinated and continuous. It is important that emergency departments have the same incentive to coordinate post-stabilization and follow up care for patients who are not federal employees or beneficiaries of Medicare or Medicaid. We have heard of minimal problems implementing this standard in those health plans participating in FEHBP and Medicare + Choice programs. Since a federal standard is in place and working, it is good policy to extend that standard to the general population. For the past ten years, we have implemented on a voluntary basis a program that embraces these concepts of honoring payment for the care our members receive in non-participating hospital emergency departments up to the point of stabilization. Our Emergency Prospective Review Program has encouraged the treating physicians in such settings to contact our physicians at the earliest opportunity to discuss the need for further care. This has allowed us to make available elements of the patient's medical record pertinent to the problem at hand and to coordinate on-going care as well as the transfer of the patient back to his/her own medical team at one of our facilities. We have found this program to be considerate of the patients' needs, emphasizing both the urgency of treatment for the immediate problem as well as the continuity of high quality care. This has been a cost-effective practice, affording the patient the highest quality of care in the most appropriate setting. By assuring immediate response to telephone inquiries from non-participating emergency facilities, we have been able to provide substantial assistance to the emergency doctor who otherwise is practicing in an isolated environment without access to the patient's medical record. Our own emergency physicians on the telephone have offered peer consultations, provisionally approved coverage for urgently needed tests and treatment, arranged for the coordination of follow up care, and implemented critical care transport of patients back to our own facilities. Of over two thousand patients transported in this fashion, one third have been discharged to their homes. Without this coordination of care, these patients would have been hospitalized at needless expense. In summary, this program has served the needs of our patients, the treating emergency physicians, and our own medical care teams, while providing substantial savings in both clinical expense and in administrative hassle over retrospective approval of payment for services provisionally approved through the telephone call. We are strongly in favor of the post-stabilization coordination provision as an essential element of the emergency access provision of the Patients Bill of Rights. Sincerely, Donald W. Parsons, MD, Associate Executive Director.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded for purposes of a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Parsons states: By assuring immediate response to telephone inquiries from non-participating emergency facilities, we have been able to provide substantial assistance to the emergency doctor who otherwise is practicing in an isolated environment without access to the patient's medical record. Our own emergency physicians on the telephone have offered peer consultations, personally approved coverage for urgently needed tests and treatment, arranged for the coordination of follow up care, and implemented critical care transportation of patients back to our own facilities. Of over 2,000 patients transported in this fashion, one third have been discharged to their homes. Without this coordination of care, these patients would have been hospitalized at needless expense. For example, to go back to my hypothetical of the child with the high fever without signs of a bacterial infection, they could have been sent home if there were arrangements made for the child to see a doctor the next day. But absent the communication between the plan and the emergency room, the emergency room admits the child. If the insurance company plays by the rules, as Kaiser-Permanente, it will now be only out the $50 for a routine primary care visit rather than the $1,000 or more that it might be out if the child is admitted to the hospital. So why are companies such as Kaiser coordinating poststabilization care with emergency departments? They are doing it because it is good health care and it is good business. I point out again, this is the same provision that the Congress passed in 1997 as it relates to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who currently have this poststabilization coordination of care coverage. So how the amendment is drafted, what the amendment says, what the details are, makes all the difference. This is not just a matter of checking off the box. It is a matter of looking inside that box to see if the prudent layperson provision, which both versions purport to offer--is it meaningful? The person who exercises prudence by going to the nearest emergency room, not necessarily the nearest emergency room that happens to be part of the network of the HMO, will they be financially protected? The person who has been stabilized--and now the question is what needs to be done to deal with the underlying cause of their symptoms-- will they be financially protected when the HMO fails to respond to the request for specific authorization? Those are the types of real differences that make the difference between the two alternative versions of emergency room care that are before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to study these differences and to be mindful of the other differences that will be articulated by the other cosponsors of this amendment. I urge their support for this amendment that makes emergency room care real for the families of America. I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the Record: One from the American College of Emergency Physicians supporting the amendment that has been offered, and the letter from the American Heart Association supporting the emergency room provision that I and colleagues have offered.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. And under the law which I alluded to, which was passed just in February of this year, that Cuban citizen who was found to be engaging in that friendly discussion about democracy and the graces that liberty brings to the human spirit will be subject to spending 20 to 30 years, without his freedom, in a Cuban cell precisely because he engaged in that conversation.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. Other than Guantanamo, I have not been to Cuba.

Mr. GRAHAM. I think the point the Senator from New Jersey was raising in his question to me was that for many of those Europeans, Latin Americans, and Americans who go to Cuba, the nature of the hotel arrangements in which they live does not lend itself to the sort of interplay that, for instance, some of us experienced in places such as Prague and Budapest prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. It also is the case that Cuban citizens who, in those rare instances, might have an opportunity to relate with an American, since February of this year, face the prospect of being charged with a criminal act of collaborating with a United States citizen and face the prospect of spending 20 to 30 years in a 17th century cell.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will conclude by saying that I ask those who think the United States changing its policy towards Cuba will have these miraculous effects in terms of breaking waves of freedom to the people that will crush what is an East German police state today--I only ask them to tell us what is the evidence, based on the outreach which has been made by countries such as Canada and Spain and European and Latin American countries, which largely share our values, which have been for 40 years in a continuous relationship with Cuba? I think the answer to the question is, there are no such evidences that that outreach has had a positive effect on Cuba. We are dealing with a sui generis anachronism in Cuba. That degree of singularity requires the kind of singularity of foreign policy that we are directing towards it, with our hopes that soon the people of Cuba will be released from that hold and that our policy will have contributed to that release and will help to establish a basis for a transition to a Cuba that will be respectful of its people and with which the United States can have normal and peaceful and prosperous relationships. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will need 15 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want all to know that there is no disagreement with the objectives, the end goals being sought by the advocates of this amendment and those of us who oppose it. I believe we are all Americans of good conscience and we seek for the Cuban people what we seek for ourselves. We seek a nation that lives with the freedoms associated with democracy. We seek a nation that respects the basic human rights of its people. We seek a nation which will encourage an economy that offers hope to the people of Cuba. We have had a long association with Cuba. It is an association which runs almost to the first Spanish exploration of our two nations. We were a major participant in the freedom of Cuba in 1898. In fact, we had celebrations within the last few months of our participation in the independence of Cuba. So our goals for those people, our feeling for the people of Cuba, is a shared one. The question is, What is the appropriate course of U.S. policy to achieve those goals? I believe, as with every other question of what U.S. foreign policy should be, it should be a mixture of a consideration of our national interests and a consideration of the universal values for which America has stood since those words in the Declaration of Independence that declared that we saw that all men--not just American men, not just men, but women--that all persons had certain inalienable rights. Those have been an important factor in our relationships with other peoples of other nations. On the specific issue of the use of travel restrictions as a part of that U.S. foreign policy, Senator Torricelli has talked about the way in which travel restrictions were imposed on Libya and the fact that those restrictions had certain objectives and have had certain consequences. The Presiding Officer and I have been interested in the issue of Lebanon for a long time. The United States had travel restrictions on Americans visiting Lebanon. The purpose of those travel restrictions was to encourage changes that would create a greater sense of security. While there are still tense days, as we have seen in the very recent past, it is now considered appropriate to allow Americans to begin again to visit Lebanon. We have used travel restrictions as a means of achieving goals that were considered to be important to the United States in the past. Yes, we are using a restriction on travel to Cuba as part of the larger, comprehensive restriction on relationships with the Government of Cuba while we attempt to achieve increased contacts with the people of Cuba. There is an assumption that if the United States does not open up its travel restrictions, the Cuban people are going to walk down sidewalks that are barren of foreign travelers and the Cuban people will not have contact with the outside world. In fact, almost 100,000 Americans visited Cuba last year under the various provisions of our existing law. In addition to that, some of the major nations of the world, nations with which we have the closest relationship, such as Spain and Canada, have an open policy, in terms of travel to Cuba, for their citizens. When you ask Spaniards or Canadians, what effect has your open policy towards Cuba had? what effect have the relationships you have had in these instances for decades with the Castro regime had? have you seen a change in the commitment to democracy? have you seen, as a result of your openness towards Cuba, a greater degree of respect for human rights? the answer is a sad no. These democracies, these nations which share our values and which have taken the course of action that is being advocated by the proponents of this amendment, have seen no effect in achieving the goals we share for Cuba--democracy, human rights, and an open economy. What gives us reason to believe that adopting an unconsidered, undebated--other than the words we speak this afternoon--major change in our policy toward Cuba would have any different result? Recent events, in fact, are to the contrary. In January of last year, 1998, a significant, what many hoped would be a historic, turning point event occurred in Cuba. The Pope visited that island. Many hoped, prayed, believed that it would lead to fundamental change in Cuba. We reinforced the momentum of the papal visit by a number of initiatives towards Cuba. On March 20, 1998, just a few weeks after the Pope had departed, in an attempt to build goodwill towards Cuba, President Clinton announced the resumption of licensing for direct humanitarian flights to Cuba. The President announced the resumption of cash remittances to Cuba. The President asked for the development of licensing procedures to streamline and expedite the commercial sale of medicine, medical supplies, and medical equipment to Cuba. Continuing in that vein, on January 9 of this year the President authorized additional steps to reach out to the Cuban people. The new measures expanded remittances by allowing any United States citizens, not just family members, to send limited funds to the people of Cuba. The President expanded people-to-people contacts. The President allowed charter passenger flights to cities other than Havana and to initiate from cities other than Miami. The measures also permitted an effort to establish direct mail service to Cuba. The measures also authorized the sale of food and agricultural inputs to independent, nongovernmental entities, including religious groups, family restaurants, and farmers. All of those are initiatives which the United States has taken since January of 1998 in hopes that it would result in a reciprocal response of some loosening of the police state that is Cuba today. What happened to all of those initiatives the United States took? What happened to the initiatives that were hoped to flow from the papal visit? The Cuban Government responded to our United States initiatives by calling these actions acts of aggression. That is what the Cuban Government labeled the opening of additional flights, of direct mail, of allowing greater remittances to the people of Cuba. Fidel Castro called all of those actions acts of aggression. What did Fidel Castro do in the context of the visit by the Pope? Almost exactly a year after the Pope departed Cuba, the Cuban Government passed a new security law. That law criminalized any form of cooperation or participation in prodemocracy efforts. That law imposed penalties ranging from 20 to 30 years for those who were found to be cooperating with the U.S. Government. Those are the responses of Fidel Castro to the papal visit. On March 1, four prominent human rights dissidents were tried in secrecy for their peaceful criticism of the Communist Party. Diplomats were barred from attendance at the trial. These four human rights and prodemocracy dissidents were held for over 1 year without charges. They were found guilty. They were sentenced to jail terms, for advocating human rights and democracy, of 3\1/2\ to 5 years. This did not happen 40 years ago. This happened in March of 1999. The Cuban Government ignored calls from the Vatican and the international community for release. Canada, the European Union, and several Latin American countries criticized the Cuban Government and stated their intention to reassess their relationship with the Government. The King of Spain had a scheduled visit to Cuba which he has deferred, in large part because of the treatment of these four dissidents. Cuba's human rights record in 1999 reflects a continued policy of repression, a policy which has been recognized not just by the United States, not just by the people of Cuba who suffer under the yoke of oppression, but by the international community. In its annual report on human rights, which was released earlier this year, Amnesty International states that at least 350 political prisoners remained imprisoned in Cuban cells in 1998. Amnesty International reports that 10 unarmed civilians were shot, executed by Cuban authorities, in 1998. As we know, the Senate passed a resolution by a vote of 98-0 on March 25 of this year stating that the United States would make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution criticizing Cuba for its human rights records before the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We were very pleased when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, with support of nations which just in the last 2 years had opposed such a resolution, passed a resolution on April 23 condemning Cuba for its human rights abuses. Finally, the State Department country report on human rights practices detailed the same human rights abuses as last year and the year before. We have made an effort to reach out to Cuba. We have made an effort to send a signal that we were looking for some reciprocity, some demonstration of a wavering in the steel-hard police state which has been Cuba for 40 years. One is hard pressed to see even the faintest breeze of a positive response to our efforts. The examples of human rights violations in all of these reports are numerous, brutal, and startling. Human rights activists are beaten in their homes. People are arbitrarily detained and arrested. Political prisoners are denied food and medicine brought by their own families. Children are made to stand in the rain chanting slogans against democracy. In the United States, on May 7 of this year, the U.S. Government revised indictments against 14 Cuban spies captured in Miami last fall while attempting to penetrate the U.S. Southern Command, the United States Naval Air Station at Boca Chica Key near Key West, and planning terrorist acts against military installations. The revised indictments also charge 2 of the 14 with conspiracy to commit murder in the 1996 shoot down of the Brothers to the Rescue fliers. It is at this point that I must become personal. I know the families of the four fliers who were shot down over international waters, now we know, at the direct command of the highest officials of the Cuban Government. If homicide is defined as the intentional taking of a human life, four acts of homicide occurred over the Straits of Florida against three U.S. citizens and one U.S. resident. This is the nature of the response that Fidel Castro has given to the efforts by the Pope, by the international community, and by the United States to try to ask, to plead for some relief for the people of Cuba. As these examples show, as the continuing reign of repression flows from week to week, from day to day in Cuba this is not the time for lifting any of the sanctions on Cuba. This is the time for us to hold the line on our policy, to continue to reach out to the people of Cuba in hopes that someday they will breathe the free air of democracy but to give no quarter to the oppressive Government of Fidel Castro.

Mr. GRAHAM. That would certainly be one of the consequences. Another consequence, I say to my friend and colleague, would be that we would send a signal to Fidel Castro that we are prepared to do virtually anything without expecting anything in response; that the same thing that has happened to the Canadians, the Spaniards, to other European and Latin American countries--attempts to reach out to Castro, which are rebuffed in terms of those things that are most important to the people of Cuba--that now we would become complicitous in that same process of unrequited love. The last thing we have to play, the last policy option that is available to us as we try to influence Castro is exactly the embargo which, by this casual act tonight, we are being asked to begin to dismantle.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is the story. Unfortunately, the people who those tourists will come in contact with will be the virtual serfs of the Castro regime because the hotels are required to purchase their employees through the Cuban Government, not by direct negotiation with the individual or through some organization representing those individuals. So by that walled-off enclave in which they are enjoying themselves, on an island of prosperity in a sea of despair--which is Cuba today --they are contributing to the maintenance of a system of economic slavery that virtually has left the face of the Earth for the past century and a half.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Feingold, in introducing the Law Enforcement Public Aviation Reform Act of 1999. This legislation will help law enforcement officers in their efforts to protect our citizens. In 1994, the Congress made a terrible mistake when it passed Public Law 103-411. Under this law, aircraft belonging to law enforcement agencies are considered ``commercial'' if costs incurred from flying missions to support neighboring jurisdictions are reimbursed. In the last Congress, we were able to include an amendment on the Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill that would have made the necessary changes. Unfortunately, this measure was stripped from the final conference committee report. This law has placed unnecessary restrictions and costly burdens on government agencies who operate public aircraft, particularly law enforcement agencies. At a time when law enforcement faces growing sophistication and organization of criminals, the federal government should not be placing additional mandates on our law enforcement officials. This law is so restrictive that it even prevents assistance from neighboring jurisdictions under mutual aid compacts. Current law requires that the agency in need of assistance exhaust all commercially available options before requesting assistance from another jurisdiction. Even in the event of ``significant and imminent threat to life or property,'' the requesting agency must first establish that ``no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet the threat.'' Law officers, pledged to protect public safety and fight crime, need the flexibility to determine the appropriate aircraft for any particular mission. They should not be required to offer private companies the right of first refusal on sensitive law enforcement missions. In many cases, it is simply not appropriate to have private companies performing law enforcement or other governmental functions. Under this bill, public agencies would be permitted to recover costs incurred by operating aircraft to assist other jurisdictions for the purpose of law enforcement, search and rescue, or imminent threat to life, property or natural resources. Mr. President, law enforcement organizations strongly support this bill. This legislation has the endorsement of the National Sheriff's Association, Airborne Law Enforcement Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Florida Sheriff's Association, and the California State Sheriff's Associations. From my home state in Florida, I have heard from Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. of Lake County. Sheriff Knupp stated, ``Current law restricts our ability to use this aircraft in the best possible manner and frankly, the law questions the authority of a popularly elected official to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the office.'' Our bipartisan proposed is simple, sound, and will serve the interests of law enforcement officials across this country. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this much needed legislation. Further delay in this matter will only serve to cost the American people unnecessary tax dollars and hamper the efforts of our law enforcement officials.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Feingold, in introducing the Law Enforcement Public Aviation Reform Act of 1999. This legislation will help law enforcement officers in their efforts to protect our citizens. In 1994, the Congress made a terrible mistake when it passed Public Law 103-411. Under this law, aircraft belonging to law enforcement agencies are considered ``commercial'' if costs incurred from flying missions to support neighboring jurisdictions are reimbursed. In the last Congress, we were able to include an amendment on the Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill that would have made the necessary changes. Unfortunately, this measure was stripped from the final conference committee report. This law has placed unnecessary restrictions and costly burdens on government agencies who operate public aircraft, particularly law enforcement agencies. At a time when law enforcement faces growing sophistication and organization of criminals, the federal government should not be placing additional mandates on our law enforcement officials. This law is so restrictive that it even prevents assistance from neighboring jurisdictions under mutual aid compacts. Current law requires that the agency in need of assistance exhaust all commercially available options before requesting assistance from another jurisdiction. Even in the event of ``significant and imminent threat to life or property,'' the requesting agency must first establish that ``no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet the threat.'' Law officers, pledged to protect public safety and fight crime, need the flexibility to determine the appropriate aircraft for any particular mission. They should not be required to offer private companies the right of first refusal on sensitive law enforcement missions. In many cases, it is simply not appropriate to have private companies performing law enforcement or other governmental functions. Under this bill, public agencies would be permitted to recover costs incurred by operating aircraft to assist other jurisdictions for the purpose of law enforcement, search and rescue, or imminent threat to life, property or natural resources. Mr. President, law enforcement organizations strongly support this bill. This legislation has the endorsement of the National Sheriff's Association, Airborne Law Enforcement Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Florida Sheriff's Association, and the California State Sheriff's Associations. From my home state in Florida, I have heard from Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. of Lake County. Sheriff Knupp stated, ``Current law restricts our ability to use this aircraft in the best possible manner and frankly, the law questions the authority of a popularly elected official to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the office.'' Our bipartisan proposed is simple, sound, and will serve the interests of law enforcement officials across this country. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this much needed legislation. Further delay in this matter will only serve to cost the American people unnecessary tax dollars and hamper the efforts of our law enforcement officials.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, over the past 18 months there has been a surge of steel imports. That surge has severely and adversely impacted the U.S. steel industry. This crisis needs to be addressed and the effects of illegal dumping dealt with in a fair and equitable way. I think the administration deserves credit for the series of steps, including bilateral agreements and vigorous enforcement of existing trade laws, that have greatly improved the steel situation in this country. Imports, as a result, are now down to below precrisis levels. I support strong action to enforce our trade laws. I believe that trade policy should be by rule of law, not by anarchy, and that with such strong rule of law enforcement we will be able to assure U.S. workers that they are not hurt by illegal import surges. However, I oppose this legislation because it has the potential of doing great damage to our economy and to the international trading system. It would violate our WTO commitments, thereby putting at risk many of the gains we have made in our economy in recent years. It would focus on a specific problem of the past but do nothing to deal with the next challenge to the rule of law in our trade policy. I believe that the most at-risk sector of our economy would be agriculture. Agriculture today enjoys the biggest trade surplus of any sector of our economy. Other countries will see this as an opportunity to retaliate against U.S. industry, wiping out export markets that our agriculture producers have achieved. We must address the problems of the steel industry in a way that does not violate our international agreements. I believe this can best be accomplished by making adjustments to section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, which is designed to deal with import surges. Last week, the Senate Finance Committee passed out legislation which modifies section 201 so that it is more responsive to import surges. This legislation is a good first step, but more can be done. The specific problems of perishable agriculture should be addressed so that seasonality can be taken into account when determining injury to a domestic industry. We must ensure that U.S. industry has recourse to affective and timely relief when they are injured due to illegal import surges. If we cannot do this, our entire system of international trade, and the health of our domestic economy will be at risk. For this reason, I will oppose cloture at this time and ask my colleagues to do the same. I urge we deal with this problem by making our trade enforcement laws more effective, more able to respond to the challenges of the future, and not succumb to a violation of our trade agreements.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Mack, Bingaman, Inouye, Inhofe, Burns, Baucus, Crapo, Craig, and Feinstein, to introduce legislation entitled the Spaceport Investment Act. On May 25th, the Cox Commission Report revealed alarming and long- standing instances of Chinese espionage that have damaged our national security. In addition to the theft of nuclear secrets at our National Laboratories, the Cox Report highlighted assistance provided by U.S. satellite manufacturers to Chinese military and civilian launch vehicles. Mr. President, we have helped to create the conditions leading to this sorry state of affairs. To borrow from Pogo, we have met the enemy, and it is us. U.S. satellite manufacturers have faced increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles, due to a lack of a sufficient domestic launch capability. The Cox Report recognized these facts specifically at recommendation number 24. I quote from the Report: ``In light of the impact on U.S. national security of insufficient domestic, commercial space-launch capacity and competition, the Select Committee recommends that appropriate congressional committees report legislation to encourage and stimulate further the expansion of such capacity and competition.'' Mr. President, we must address this problem. Last year, along with Senator Mack, I proposed, Congress passed, and the President signed into law the Commercial Space Act. Congressman Dave Weldon provided crucial leadership in the House on this issue. The Commercial Space Act helped break the federal government's monopoly on space travel by establishing a licensing framework for private sector reusable launch vehicles. The Act also provided for the conversion of excess ballistic missiles into space transportation vehicles, helping to reduce the cost of access to space. Mr. President, to follow-up on the Commercial Space Act this year, I plan to introduce a number of initiatives to further help the commercial space industry in this country. The first of these initiatives is my proposal to stimulate infrastructure development by attracting private sector investment capital to our nation's launch facilities. My proposal achieves this purpose by addressing an issue of great importance to our country's commercial space transportation industry--tax exempt status for spaceport facility bonds. The legislation clarifies that spaceports are eligible for tax exempt financing to the same extent as publicly-owned airports and seaports. This bill will stimulate the growth of spaceports in this country by attracting private sector investment capital for infrastructure improvement, leading directly to the expansion of U.S. launch capacity and competition. Spaceports are subdivisions of state government. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry by providing launch infrastructure in addition to that available at federal facilities. Spaceport authorities operate much like airport authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to industry and surrounding communities. The Spaceport Florida Authority was the first such entity, created as a subdivision of state government by Florida's Governor and State Legislature in 1989. Its purpose is to attract space related businesses by providing a supportive and coordinated environment for space related economic growth and educational development. Since its creation, Spaceport Florida estimates that it has been involved in space-related construction and investment projects worth more than $100 million. These efforts include the modification and conversion of Launch Complex 46 from a military to commercial facility. NASA's Lunar Prospector was launched from this site on January 6, 1998, the first launch conducted from a spaceport. There are presently four spaceports throughout the country in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, and more than ten others are under consideration. States considering the development of spaceports include Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Louisiana, Utah, and Idaho. Our Nation's commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves and providers of launch services, but also companies which develop needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles and their components. This industry faces increasing pressure from government sponsored or subsidized competition from Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, and Russia. The French Government, for example, indirectly provides Arianespace with most of its infrastructure, including real and personal property. In countries with non-market economies, such as China, the government provides all real and personal property as well as labor necessary to build satellites and launch vehicles. Mr. President, my proposal does not provide direct federal spending for our commercial space transportation industry. Instead, it creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private sector capital investment in infrastructure. This is an efficient means of achieving our ends. Mr. President, to be state of the art in space requires state of the art financing on the ground. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by co-sponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senators Mack, Bingaman, Inouye, Inhofe, Burns, Baucus, Crapo, Craig, and Feinstein, to introduce legislation entitled the Spaceport Investment Act. On May 25th, the Cox Commission Report revealed alarming and long- standing instances of Chinese espionage that have damaged our national security. In addition to the theft of nuclear secrets at our National Laboratories, the Cox Report highlighted assistance provided by U.S. satellite manufacturers to Chinese military and civilian launch vehicles. Mr. President, we have helped to create the conditions leading to this sorry state of affairs. To borrow from Pogo, we have met the enemy, and it is us. U.S. satellite manufacturers have faced increasing pressure to consider the use of foreign launch vehicles, due to a lack of a sufficient domestic launch capability. The Cox Report recognized these facts specifically at recommendation number 24. I quote from the Report: ``In light of the impact on U.S. national security of insufficient domestic, commercial space-launch capacity and competition, the Select Committee recommends that appropriate congressional committees report legislation to encourage and stimulate further the expansion of such capacity and competition.'' Mr. President, we must address this problem. Last year, along with Senator Mack, I proposed, Congress passed, and the President signed into law the Commercial Space Act. Congressman Dave Weldon provided crucial leadership in the House on this issue. The Commercial Space Act helped break the federal government's monopoly on space travel by establishing a licensing framework for private sector reusable launch vehicles. The Act also provided for the conversion of excess ballistic missiles into space transportation vehicles, helping to reduce the cost of access to space. Mr. President, to follow-up on the Commercial Space Act this year, I plan to introduce a number of initiatives to further help the commercial space industry in this country. The first of these initiatives is my proposal to stimulate infrastructure development by attracting private sector investment capital to our nation's launch facilities. My proposal achieves this purpose by addressing an issue of great importance to our country's commercial space transportation industry--tax exempt status for spaceport facility bonds. The legislation clarifies that spaceports are eligible for tax exempt financing to the same extent as publicly-owned airports and seaports. This bill will stimulate the growth of spaceports in this country by attracting private sector investment capital for infrastructure improvement, leading directly to the expansion of U.S. launch capacity and competition. Spaceports are subdivisions of state government. They attract and promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry by providing launch infrastructure in addition to that available at federal facilities. Spaceport authorities operate much like airport authorities by providing economic and transportation incentives to industry and surrounding communities. The Spaceport Florida Authority was the first such entity, created as a subdivision of state government by Florida's Governor and State Legislature in 1989. Its purpose is to attract space related businesses by providing a supportive and coordinated environment for space related economic growth and educational development. Since its creation, Spaceport Florida estimates that it has been involved in space-related construction and investment projects worth more than $100 million. These efforts include the modification and conversion of Launch Complex 46 from a military to commercial facility. NASA's Lunar Prospector was launched from this site on January 6, 1998, the first launch conducted from a spaceport. There are presently four spaceports throughout the country in Florida, California, Virginia, and Alaska, and more than ten others are under consideration. States considering the development of spaceports include Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Louisiana, Utah, and Idaho. Our Nation's commercial space transportation industry includes not only spaceports themselves and providers of launch services, but also companies which develop needed infrastructure for testing and servicing launch vehicles and their components. This industry faces increasing pressure from government sponsored or subsidized competition from Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, and Russia. The French Government, for example, indirectly provides Arianespace with most of its infrastructure, including real and personal property. In countries with non-market economies, such as China, the government provides all real and personal property as well as labor necessary to build satellites and launch vehicles. Mr. President, my proposal does not provide direct federal spending for our commercial space transportation industry. Instead, it creates the conditions necessary to stimulate private sector capital investment in infrastructure. This is an efficient means of achieving our ends. Mr. President, to be state of the art in space requires state of the art financing on the ground. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by co-sponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I, too, thank the distinguished Senators from New Mexico and Nevada for their support in this most important matter. international radioecology laboratory

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Chafee, Mack, McCain, and Moynihan, to introduce the Immigrant Children Health Improvement Act of 1999. I believe that these efforts are necessary in order to guarantee a healthy generation of children. This legislation is simple. It provides states the option to provide health care coverage to legal immigrant children through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--in essence eliminating the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996 as the cutoff date for benefits eligibility to children. The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 prohibits states from covering these immigrant children during their first five years in the United States. This prohibition has serious consequences. Children without health insurance do not get important care for preventable diseases. Many uninsured children are hospitalized for acute asthma attacks that could have been prevented, or suffer from permanent hearing loss from untreated ear infections. Without adequate health care, common illnesses can turn into life-long crippling disease, whereas appropriate treatment and care can help children with diseases like diabetes live relatively normal lives. A lack of adequate medical care will also hinder the social and educational development of children, as children who are sick and left untreated are less ready to learn. In addition to allowing extended coverage of legal immigrant children, this initiative aims to provide Medicaid to legal immigrant pregnant women who are also barred from receiving services as a result of the 1996 welfare reform law. This legislation attempts to diminish the arbitrary cutoff date used in the 1996 welfare law to determine the eligibility of legal immigrants to benefits they desperately need. Our nation was built by people who came to our shores seeking opportunity and a better life, and America has greatly benefitted from the talent, resourcefulness, determination, and work ethic of many generations of legal immigrants. Time and time again, they have restored our faith in the American Dream. We should not discriminate between these important members of our community based on nothing more than an arbitrary date. As our nation enters what promises to be a dynamic century, the United States needs a prudent, fair immigration policy to ensure that avenues of refuge and opportunity remain open for those seeking freedom, justice, and a better life.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Chafee, Mack, McCain, and Moynihan, to introduce the Immigrant Children Health Improvement Act of 1999. I believe that these efforts are necessary in order to guarantee a healthy generation of children. This legislation is simple. It provides states the option to provide health care coverage to legal immigrant children through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--in essence eliminating the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996 as the cutoff date for benefits eligibility to children. The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 prohibits states from covering these immigrant children during their first five years in the United States. This prohibition has serious consequences. Children without health insurance do not get important care for preventable diseases. Many uninsured children are hospitalized for acute asthma attacks that could have been prevented, or suffer from permanent hearing loss from untreated ear infections. Without adequate health care, common illnesses can turn into life-long crippling disease, whereas appropriate treatment and care can help children with diseases like diabetes live relatively normal lives. A lack of adequate medical care will also hinder the social and educational development of children, as children who are sick and left untreated are less ready to learn. In addition to allowing extended coverage of legal immigrant children, this initiative aims to provide Medicaid to legal immigrant pregnant women who are also barred from receiving services as a result of the 1996 welfare reform law. This legislation attempts to diminish the arbitrary cutoff date used in the 1996 welfare law to determine the eligibility of legal immigrants to benefits they desperately need. Our nation was built by people who came to our shores seeking opportunity and a better life, and America has greatly benefitted from the talent, resourcefulness, determination, and work ethic of many generations of legal immigrants. Time and time again, they have restored our faith in the American Dream. We should not discriminate between these important members of our community based on nothing more than an arbitrary date. As our nation enters what promises to be a dynamic century, the United States needs a prudent, fair immigration policy to ensure that avenues of refuge and opportunity remain open for those seeking freedom, justice, and a better life.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support measures that will create a financially solvent Social Security system for current and future beneficiaries. I am pleased that the Senate is debating this issue, since the Trustees predict that in 2034 the current Social Security system will no longer be solvent. However, the proposed lockbox in this legislation is not the way to make Social Security financially solvent for our children and our grandchildren. The proposed lockbox reminds one of the 1980s--real efforts at fiscal discipline were ignored in favor for catchy slogans and irrelevant procedural changes. As Congress fiddled, our budget burned. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the national debt quadrupled and the annual deficit reached almost $300 billion in 1992. If we are going to create a lockbox, the Senate needs to develop one without any holes. Unfortunately, the lockbox in the current proposal has several large holes. It allows Social Security Surplus to be used for Social Security and Medicare Reform. For instance, Social Security reform can mean different things. Some of them do not mean achieving solvency of the Social Security system. Social Security reform could mean creating individual retirement accounts. Let's not allow the surplus out of the lockbox until we have ``reform'' that ensures solvency. If I had been allowed, I would have offered an amendment that would use the Social Security surpluses to pay off the debt held by the public. Only this action will truly ensure that the Social Security surplus is used to create a stronger economy. Paying down the debt would lower long term interest rates. Lower interest rates make it less expensive for the American public to borrow money. The low cost of borrowing would encourage the American public to get loans that they could invest in new business ventures and in education. The new economic activity and increased labor productivity derived from these activities will lead to increased economic growth. More economic growth leads to increased FICA tax revenue which gives the Social Security Trust Fund more income and extends solvency. This lockbox proposal that we are considering has numerous other holes. The proposal focuses on securing the bank that will hold the Social Security surplus. However, it does not secure the train that takes the money to the bank. Jesse James, the famous American outlaw, used to rob banks and trains. Like any good outlaw, he would steal money where it was easiest to do so. If the bank was too secure to rob, he would rob the train that brought the money to the bank. Congress' abuses of its emergency spending powers are similar to robbing the train that brings the Social Security surplus to bank. The 1990 budget agreement specifically outlined a binding, multi-year deficit-reduction plan, along with a web of procedural controls to restrain federal spending. That included rules on instances when Congress could escape those spending restraints to pay for emergency needs. Unfortunately, this emergency safety valve is increasingly used to evade fiscal discipline. What Washington believes to be a true ``emergency'' is decidedly different than what the average person probably thinks. In the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, we passed a $532 billion omnibus appropriations bill. Included in that bill was $21.4 billion in so-called ``emergency'' spending. Without the emergency designation, Congress would have been required to offset each expenditure under the ``pay-as-you-go'' rule that is critical to maintaining fiscal discipline and balance. Let's consider the numbers. In 1998, the Social Security surplus was $99 billion. $27 billion of that surplus was used to cover a deficit in the Federal operating budget. An additional $3 billion was used to pay for emergency outlays. All of a sudden, the $99 billion Social Security surplus was reduced to $69 billion. In 1999, we are projecting a $127 billion Social Security surplus. But we have spent another $12.6 billion for emergencies, reducing that surplus to $98 billion. And even though we have not yet reached the 2000 fiscal year, we already know that emergency spending expenditures will reduce that year's Social Security surplus by $10 billion. Our repetitive misuse of the emergency process continues to erode the Social Security Trust Fund. Senator Snowe of Maine and I have introduced legislation that would establish permanent safeguards to protect the surplus from questionable ``emergency'' uses. Specifically, our legislation would do the following: 1. Create a 60-vote point of order that prevents non-emergency items from being included in emergency spending bills. This will ensure that non-emergency items are subject to careful scrutiny. 2. Create a 60-vote point of order that will allow members to challenge the validity of items that are redesignated as ``emergencies.'' 3. Require a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate for the passage of any bill that contains emergency spending. This will serve as a ``safety value'' to ensure that there is strong support for a bill containing emergency spending even if neither of the proceeding points of order were exercised for any reason. Mr. President, as we adjust to the welcome reality of budget surpluses--after decades of annual deficits and burgeoning additions to the national debt--we must never forget how easily this valuable asset can be squandered. For too long, the Federal Government treated the budget like a credit card with an unlimited spending limit. If our hard-won surpluses are going to be preserved, we have to prevent the abuse of emergency spending from taking over the budgetary process. Too many instances of misuse will enlarge the hard task of identifying true emergencies and injure the credibility and original purpose of ``emergency'' spending. Just as private citizens are warned against falsely dialing 911, Congress should be restrained from misusing its emergency spending powers. The next door wide open to raids on the surplus will be the one that passes on more debt--and a less secure Social Security system--to our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, a ``lockbox'' is a good idea. But we can make this one stronger. We can control ``emergency spending'' so there will be money to put in the lockbox for future generations.