Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I strongly endorse the recommendation of my colleague from Florida and hope that the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Reid, will approve the full budget request in the final bill that is sent to the White House for approval. This is a program that is important to us and to our State.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that Sean McClusky, Curtis Rubinas, Dennis Tamargo, and Zachary Bennett of my staff be afforded floor privileges for the consideration of this legislation.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999. This bill has a clear, simple, yet profoundly important message. That message is, ``Preventive health care for the elderly works.'' Regardless of your age, preventive health care improves quality of life. And 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. The Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999 has a broad base of support from across the health care and aging communities, including the National Council on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Heart Association, the American Council of the Blind, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the Partnership for Prevention. This bill goes a long way toward changing the fundamental focus of the Medicare program from one that continues to focus on the treatment of illness and disability--a function which is reactionary--to one that is proactive and increases the attention paid to prevention for Medicare beneficiaries. This bill has 4 main components: First, the bill establishes the healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be spearheaded by an interagency workgroup within the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Health Care Financing Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Health Care Policy Research, the National Institute on Aging, and the Administration on Aging. This working group, first and foremost, will bring together all the agencies within HHS that address the social, medical, and behavioral health issues affecting the elderly, and instructs them to undertake a series of actions which will serve to increase prevention-related services among the elderly. A major function of this working group will be to oversee the development, monitoring, and evaluation of an applied research initiative whose main goals will be to study: (1) The effectiveness of using different types of providers of care, as well as looking at alternative delivery settings, when delivering health promotion and disease prevention services, and (2) the most effective means of educating Medicare beneficiaries and providers regarding the importance of prevention and to examine ways to improve utilization of existing and future prevention-related services. 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. A second major portion of this bill is the coverage of additional preventive services for the Medicare program. The services that I am including focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries. This bill would include screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, and counseling for hormone replacement therapy. Attacking these prominent risk factors would reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, osteoporosis, heart disease, and blindness. How did we choose these risk factors? We turned to the experts. Based on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, these prevention services represent the recommendations of the Task Force which is the nationally recognized body in the area of clinical prevention services. But simply screening or counseling for a preventive benefit is not enough. For example, to tell a 68-year-old woman that she ought to receive hormone replacement therapy in order to reduce her risk or osteoporosis and bone fractures from falls, and then to tell her you won't pay for the treatment makes no sense. Since falls and the resulting injuries are among the most serious and common medical problems suffered by the elderly--with nearly 80-90 percent of hip fractures and 60-90 percent of forearm and spine fractures among women 65 and older estimated to be osteoporosis- related--to sit idly by and not take the extra steps needed would be irresponsible. That is why, Mr. President, we are going the extra mile. The third major section of our bill includes a limited, prevention-related outpatient prescription drug benefit. This benefit directly mirrors the services I just described, plus it provides coverage of outpatient prescription drugs for the preventive services added to the Medicare program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--e.g., mammograms, diabetes, colorectal cancer. For example, if a 70-year-old smoker is counseled by his physician to stop smoking, that individual will now have access to all necessary and appropriate outpatient prescription drugs used as part of an approved tobacco cessation program. By linking counseling and drug treatment, we increase the chances of success tremendously. For example, there is a 60 percent higher survival rate among individuals who quit smoking compared to smokers of all ages. And because the number of older people at risk for cancer and heart disease is higher, tobacco cessation has the potential to have a larger aggregate benefit among older persons. Our bill also provides outpatient drugs for the treatment of hypertension, hormone replacement therapy, osteoporosis and heart disease, and glaucoma. It also provides coverage of drugs stemming from the preventive services added by the Balanced Budget Act. While many of my colleagues would prefer to see a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is comprehensive in nature, the facts are that such a benefit is simply not affordable--$20+ billion per year--at this point in time. This bill is a down payment to current and future Medicare beneficiaries and provides them access to prescription drugs that will make a profound impact in their lives. Important to note, this bill also states that if the Administration moves forward with and prevails in its efforts to sue the tobacco industry for the recovery of funds paid by Federal programs such as Medicare for tobacco-related illness, that half of those funds would be used to add additional categories of drugs to this limited benefit. This bill would also instruct the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study that would, in part, create a prioritized list of prescription drugs that would be used to add new categories of drugs to the program, if and when, tobacco settlement funds become a reality in the future. Finally, the bill contains two important studies that will be conducted on a routine, periodic basis. The first study would require MedPAC to report to Congress every two years on how the Medicare program is, or is not, remaining competitive and modern in relationship to private sector health programs. This will give the Congress [information it doesn't now have] the ability to assess, on an ongoing basis, how Medicare is faring in its efforts to modernize over time. The second study will again be conducted by the Institute of Medicine. The Institute of Medicine, with input from new, original research on prevention and the elderly that we will be funding through the National Institute on Aging, will conduct a study every 5 years to assess the preventive benefit package, including prescription drugs. The study will determine whether or not the preventive benefit package needs to be modified or changed based on the most current science. A critical component of this study will be the manner in which it is presented to Congress. To this end, I have borrowed a page from our Nation's international trade laws (The Trade Act of 1974) and developed a fast track proposal for the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. This is a deliberate effort, Mr. President, to finally get Congress out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program and the medical and health care decisions within it. While limited to the preventive benefits package, this will offer a litmus test on a new and creative approach to future Medicare decision making. This provision would put the substantive decision making authority where it belongs, in the hands of the real experts, not the politicians and not the lobbyists who come to our offices every day. Congress, after some deliberation, would either have to accept or reject the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. A change, in my view, that would be a major, positive change in how we do business in this body. 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 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. Do preventive benefits ``cost'' money in terms of making them available? Sure they do. 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 they evaluate the budgetary impact of all legislative proposals, that 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. And with the average lifespan of individuals whom are 65 being nearly 20 years--and individuals 85 and older are the fastest growing segment of the elder population--it only makes sense to look at services and benefits that improve the quality of their lives and reduce the costs to the Federal government for that 20-year lifespan and beyond. 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 productivity and 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. I want to leave you with these last thoughts, Mr. President. As Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, several basic questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of the debate. (1) Is the value of improve quality of life worth the expenditure? (2) How important is it for the Medicare population to be able to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives? (3) Do we, as a Nation, accept the premise that quality of life for our elderly is as important as any other measure of health? (4) If we can, in fact, delay the onset of disease for the Medicare population by improving access to preventive services and compliance with these services, how important is it to ensure that there is an overall saving to the system? 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 current and future generations of Medicare beneficiaries. I urge colleagues to support the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999. This bill has a clear, simple, yet profoundly important message. That message is, ``Preventive health care for the elderly works.'' Regardless of your age, preventive health care improves quality of life. And 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. The Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999 has a broad base of support from across the health care and aging communities, including the National Council on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Heart Association, the American Council of the Blind, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the Partnership for Prevention. This bill goes a long way toward changing the fundamental focus of the Medicare program from one that continues to focus on the treatment of illness and disability--a function which is reactionary--to one that is proactive and increases the attention paid to prevention for Medicare beneficiaries. This bill has 4 main components: First, the bill establishes the healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be spearheaded by an interagency workgroup within the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Health Care Financing Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Health Care Policy Research, the National Institute on Aging, and the Administration on Aging. This working group, first and foremost, will bring together all the agencies within HHS that address the social, medical, and behavioral health issues affecting the elderly, and instructs them to undertake a series of actions which will serve to increase prevention-related services among the elderly. A major function of this working group will be to oversee the development, monitoring, and evaluation of an applied research initiative whose main goals will be to study: (1) The effectiveness of using different types of providers of care, as well as looking at alternative delivery settings, when delivering health promotion and disease prevention services, and (2) the most effective means of educating Medicare beneficiaries and providers regarding the importance of prevention and to examine ways to improve utilization of existing and future prevention-related services. 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. A second major portion of this bill is the coverage of additional preventive services for the Medicare program. The services that I am including focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries. This bill would include screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, and counseling for hormone replacement therapy. Attacking these prominent risk factors would reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, osteoporosis, heart disease, and blindness. How did we choose these risk factors? We turned to the experts. Based on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, these prevention services represent the recommendations of the Task Force which is the nationally recognized body in the area of clinical prevention services. But simply screening or counseling for a preventive benefit is not enough. For example, to tell a 68-year-old woman that she ought to receive hormone replacement therapy in order to reduce her risk or osteoporosis and bone fractures from falls, and then to tell her you won't pay for the treatment makes no sense. Since falls and the resulting injuries are among the most serious and common medical problems suffered by the elderly--with nearly 80-90 percent of hip fractures and 60-90 percent of forearm and spine fractures among women 65 and older estimated to be osteoporosis- related--to sit idly by and not take the extra steps needed would be irresponsible. That is why, Mr. President, we are going the extra mile. The third major section of our bill includes a limited, prevention-related outpatient prescription drug benefit. This benefit directly mirrors the services I just described, plus it provides coverage of outpatient prescription drugs for the preventive services added to the Medicare program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--e.g., mammograms, diabetes, colorectal cancer. For example, if a 70-year-old smoker is counseled by his physician to stop smoking, that individual will now have access to all necessary and appropriate outpatient prescription drugs used as part of an approved tobacco cessation program. By linking counseling and drug treatment, we increase the chances of success tremendously. For example, there is a 60 percent higher survival rate among individuals who quit smoking compared to smokers of all ages. And because the number of older people at risk for cancer and heart disease is higher, tobacco cessation has the potential to have a larger aggregate benefit among older persons. Our bill also provides outpatient drugs for the treatment of hypertension, hormone replacement therapy, osteoporosis and heart disease, and glaucoma. It also provides coverage of drugs stemming from the preventive services added by the Balanced Budget Act. While many of my colleagues would prefer to see a Medicare prescription drug benefit that is comprehensive in nature, the facts are that such a benefit is simply not affordable--$20+ billion per year--at this point in time. This bill is a down payment to current and future Medicare beneficiaries and provides them access to prescription drugs that will make a profound impact in their lives. Important to note, this bill also states that if the Administration moves forward with and prevails in its efforts to sue the tobacco industry for the recovery of funds paid by Federal programs such as Medicare for tobacco-related illness, that half of those funds would be used to add additional categories of drugs to this limited benefit. This bill would also instruct the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study that would, in part, create a prioritized list of prescription drugs that would be used to add new categories of drugs to the program, if and when, tobacco settlement funds become a reality in the future. Finally, the bill contains two important studies that will be conducted on a routine, periodic basis. The first study would require MedPAC to report to Congress every two years on how the Medicare program is, or is not, remaining competitive and modern in relationship to private sector health programs. This will give the Congress [information it doesn't now have] the ability to assess, on an ongoing basis, how Medicare is faring in its efforts to modernize over time. The second study will again be conducted by the Institute of Medicine. The Institute of Medicine, with input from new, original research on prevention and the elderly that we will be funding through the National Institute on Aging, will conduct a study every 5 years to assess the preventive benefit package, including prescription drugs. The study will determine whether or not the preventive benefit package needs to be modified or changed based on the most current science. A critical component of this study will be the manner in which it is presented to Congress. To this end, I have borrowed a page from our Nation's international trade laws (The Trade Act of 1974) and developed a fast track proposal for the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. This is a deliberate effort, Mr. President, to finally get Congress out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program and the medical and health care decisions within it. While limited to the preventive benefits package, this will offer a litmus test on a new and creative approach to future Medicare decision making. This provision would put the substantive decision making authority where it belongs, in the hands of the real experts, not the politicians and not the lobbyists who come to our offices every day. Congress, after some deliberation, would either have to accept or reject the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. A change, in my view, that would be a major, positive change in how we do business in this body. 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 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. Do preventive benefits ``cost'' money in terms of making them available? Sure they do. 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 they evaluate the budgetary impact of all legislative proposals, that 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. And with the average lifespan of individuals whom are 65 being nearly 20 years--and individuals 85 and older are the fastest growing segment of the elder population--it only makes sense to look at services and benefits that improve the quality of their lives and reduce the costs to the Federal government for that 20-year lifespan and beyond. 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 productivity and 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. I want to leave you with these last thoughts, Mr. President. As Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, several basic questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of the debate. (1) Is the value of improve quality of life worth the expenditure? (2) How important is it for the Medicare population to be able to maintain healthy, functional and productive lives? (3) Do we, as a Nation, accept the premise that quality of life for our elderly is as important as any other measure of health? (4) If we can, in fact, delay the onset of disease for the Medicare population by improving access to preventive services and compliance with these services, how important is it to ensure that there is an overall saving to the system? 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 current and future generations of Medicare beneficiaries. I urge colleagues to support the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers H.R. 1555 I be recognized to offer an amendment relative to counterintelligence, and I further ask consent that if this agreement is agreed to that amendment 447 be withdrawn.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Sandi Dittig of our staff be allowed on the floor for the duration of the debate on the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 447 (Purpose: To establish a commission on the counterintelligence capabilities of the United States)

Mr. GRAHAM. Does the Senator agree that in order to sort through those complexities, we would need a group of Americans who can look at this both from a strategic perspective as well as from the technical competencies of what is required to do appropriate counterintelligence protective processes and methods?

Mr. GRAHAM. One of the principal purposes of this commission starts with a recognition that our counterintelligence problems, or vulnerabilities, are not limited to Chinese penetration and are not limited to Department of Energy Laboratories. In fact, I have quoted from a study by the General Accounting Office that is less than 10 days old about a major potential penetration in NASA of its computer systems. The question: ``Would the Senator agree that whatever form Congress took to look at this issue, in addition to being rational, prudent, thoughtful, that it should also be comprehensive, in terms of the agencies of the Federal Government and the potential sources of efforts to penetrate those agencies?''

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I have presented the Senate with an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill. The amendment would establish a national commission to conduct an in-depth assessment of our Government's counterintelligence programs. The discussion we just had for the past 30 minutes I think underscores the necessity of the amendment I am offering. I am afraid we are about to be put into a position in which there is a rush to action. It is almost analogous to the metaphor of firing before you aim. We have in the defense bill, as an example, a very comprehensive commission on safeguarding security and counterintelligence at the Department of Energy facilities. That begins on page 540 of the committee bill. Among other things, it states that the commission will determine the adequacy of those activities to ensure the security of sensitive information, processes, and activities under the jurisdiction of the Department against threats of the disclosure of such information, processes, and activities. In the same bill where we are establishing a commission to review those issues of process, we are now about to adopt an amendment which countermands this commission by making a decision based on 30 minutes of floor debate for answers to provide greater security at the Department of Energy. I suggest these proposals have not received the thought and consideration which their importance to the Nation deserves. I also am concerned that there is a highly partisan atmosphere being developed. In today's Roll Call magazine there is an article which quotes one congressional staffer as saying, We're going to milk this [the Chinese espionage issue] for all it's worth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record immediately after my remarks a copy of that article.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as members of the Congress, we need to accept our responsibility and accept the importance of counterintelligence to our national security. The country cannot afford a partisan debate. We cannot afford a piecemeal solution to what is a complex set of issues. Yet with the amendments that are being offered in both Houses, that is exactly what we are getting. My amendment represents an attempt to transform a potentially destructive partisan debate into a nonpartisan, objective, dispassionate, and comprehensive review of current counterintelligence policies--not just at the Department of Energy, but across the government--a review that is long overdue. Such a review would address a number of issues: What is the nature of the counterintelligence threat? The nature of the threat goes far beyond China and it goes far beyond our Department of Energy National Laboratories. For example, there are 24 countries on the Department of Energy's sensitive country list. Those countries include those that we would expect to be on such a list--China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq--but the list also includes India, Israel, and Taiwan--countries, I suspect, many Americans would be surprised to find on that list. Another example of the threat relates to the missile programs in India, Pakistan, and North Korea. To what extent have their programs benefited from American technology and know-how gleaned from our Labs or other high-tech institutions? What leads us to believe that our only vulnerability is from China? The threat goes beyond the traditional security parameters of guns, gates, and guards at the Department of Energy. We must include an indepth look across the government and at the new areas of security vulnerability. I have a report from the General Accounting Office issued to the Congress on May 20, 1999. This was an analysis of the vulnerability of the NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, about the vulnerability of its system to security penetration. I will read a paragraph titled ``Results in Brief.'' We successfully penetrated several mission-critical systems, including one responsible for calculating detailed positioning data for Earth orbiting spacecraft and another that processes and distributes the scientific data received from these spacecraft. Having obtained access to these systems, we could have disrupted NASA's ongoing command and control operations and stolen, modified, or destroyed systems software and data. That is just another example of our national vulnerability. Who should assess this threat? I believe that the commission that should be established by this amendment would appropriately represent the interests of the American people through the administration and the legislative branches and would necessarily include persons with strategic vision and specific counterintelligence experience. I have used as the model for the establishment of this commission, a commission which was established by the Congress in 1994 under the leadership of Senator Warner, a commission which became known as the Aspin-Brown Commission, to look at our intelligence community. Like that commission, this would have 17 members. The President would appoint 9, the leadership of the Senate and the House--majority and minority--would appoint a total of 8 commissioners. The commission would be charged with assessing the current counterintelligence threat and the adequacy of resources being applied to that threat. Commissioners would also examine current personnel levels and training oversight--both executive and legislative-- coordination among government agencies, the laws now on the books and their adequacy, the adequacy of current investigative techniques and, last but not least, attempt to determine whether vigorous counterintelligence capability can coexist with important work carried out by our National Laboratories and other important technological institutions. It is important that we keep counterintelligence problems and possible solutions in some perspective. There is no doubt that counterintelligence deficiencies of the Department of Energy are longstanding. They have been excruciatingly well documented over a long period of time. We should have addressed these issues years ago. But as serious as our counterintelligence weaknesses are at the Department of Energy and at our National Laboratories, effective focus on counterintelligence issues must take into account many other agencies of the government. It must do this if we are to construct a comprehensive and effective counterintelligence response. Those agencies, of course, include those belonging to the intelligence community, but also must include agencies such as NASA, whose vulnerability I have just outlined, and the Department of Commerce, which has had the responsibility for reviewing highly technical decisions on whether it is appropriate to license for export particular dual-use machinery that might serve a military purpose. These reviews of agencies like NASA and the Department of Commerce have not been viewed in the past as warranting the degree of counterintelligence focus which I believe they deserve. For those who argue that we can't wait for the commission, that we must act today, I point out that the immediate counterintelligence issues facing our Department of Energy National Labs are being addressed. According to Ed Curran, a highly respected 37-year FBI veteran who now heads the Department of Energy's Counterintelligence Office, 75 to 80 percent of the Tier One recommendations resulting from a 1998 FBI evaluation of Lab counterintelligence are now in place. The remainder will be in place within 7 months. These are important steps that will go a long way in the short term to protect the work going on at the Labs. In the heat of the moment, numerous recommendations are being put forward to improve counterintelligence at the Department of Energy. Some of them may be useful. Others, such as placing counterintelligence at the Labs under the FBI's control, may not be. All recommendations deserve careful, objective, and dispassionate attention. I believe a commission of the type that this amendment would establish would be the appropriate place to begin such a comprehensive reexamination. I suggest that we draw a collective breath, that we step back, that we take a serious indepth look at this very complicated issue, and that we reach a consensus as Americans on the best way to proceed. I am convinced if we force solutions and force them beyond our current analysis and rush our deliberations, that we are likely to end up asking the wrong questions and coming up with the wrong answer. America will be disserved by this pattern of action and the Congress will be the culprit. Exhibit 1 [From Roll Call, May 27, 1999] Cox Report Sparks Wave of GOP Initiatives (By John Bresnahan) This week's release of the report on Chinese espionage by the select House committee chaired by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) has triggered a wave of legislative initiatives. Senate Republicans are pounding on senior administration officials, including Attorney General Janet Reno, for their perceived failure to address some of the most serious allegations dealing with the scandal, including the Justice Department's refusal to go along with an FBI wiretap of a scientist suspected of transferring sensitive nuclear data to the Chinese government. Reno is scheduled to appear today before the senate Judiciary Committee in closed session to talk about her role in the denial of the wiretap request. Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese-born scientist, was fired recently from his job at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico due to his alleged involvement with Chinese intelligence officials. Lee first came under scrutiny in 1996 after U.S. intelligence officials learned the Chinese government may have acquired data on an advanced U.S. nuclear weapons systems. The following year, the Justice Department declined to seek a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on him, with officials arguing that they did not have sufficient evidence to approve such a step. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) now believes Reno personally denied the FBI request for electronic surveillance on Lee, a reversal of his earlier position that he did not think she was directly involved in the controversy. ``It looks to me like the line goes directly to her,'' said Lott. ``Clearly, it's indefensible in my mind these two [search] requests were turned down.'' Lott, though, backed away from any suggestion that Reno should step down from her post. ``I have not called for [her] resignation,'' noted the Majority Leader. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, has already called on Reno to resign. Reno could also face tough questioning from Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), who has been highly critical of Reno's behavior, during her Thursday appearance. ``I believe President Clinton needs to make an assessment whether Janet Reno is properly administering the department and whether she has any culpability for this failure to find probable cause to issue this warrant,'' Torricelli said this week. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has also come under fire from GOP Congressional leaders for his role in the scandal. Senate Republicans plan a broad legislative offensive on China, possibly including new restrictions on the ability of the Chinese officials to travel within the United States during visits here, although they are promising to move slowly on the issue. Republicans are using the recommendations included in an earlier Intelligence Committee report, as well as the Cox report, as the basis for the legislation, said GOP staffers. But Lott is still hedging on whether to set up a special Senate investigative committee to look into Chinese espionage, despite calls from some Senate Republicans to do just that. Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) introduced a bill this week calling for a special committee, while Sens. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) support the idea, according to GOP sources. The GOP staffers say senior Republicans, including several committee chairmen, are opposed to the idea, believing that Clinton and the Democrats may use the panel as an opportunity to attack Republicans for conducting a witch hunt for Chinese spies. ``This idea is not dead,'' said a senior Senate GOP staffer. ``It's going back and forth. It's still percolating.'' Lott has inaugurated weekly meetings of his China task force, which includes Shelby, Armed Services Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms (R- N.C.), Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Frank Murkowski (R- Alaska), as well as GOP Sens. Specter, Thad Cochran (Miss.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tim Hutchinson (Ark.) and Craig Thomas (Wyo.). That group is giving Lott weekly updates on China, although the Mississippi Republican also wants to get the most political mileage he can out of the Cox report. ``We're going to milk this for all its worth,'' said one Senate GOP staffer. ``What we do next is still being considered.'' Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has been echoing the White House line that past administrations, including those of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, were guilty of lax oversight of Chinese intelligence activities within the United States. Daschle cited an 1988 internal Energy Department study that found ``a significant amount of important technology may have been lost to potential adversaries through visits'' that took place in the early 1980s.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield for another question?

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator's last point about trade-offs highlights the fact that we risk making our nation less secure if we are not careful with our solutions. We could potentially be lured into doing what Hitler did in the 1930s and 1940s; that is, prevent intelligent and capable people from participating in our nation's government and society on the basis of their ethnicity. So we do not want, as some have suggested, ethnic standards determining who will have an opportunity to access our laboratories. In my judgement, security should be based on the individual who is involved, not on that individual's membership in a larger ethnic group. The danger of denying our nation a pool of talent due to ethnic stereotyping illustrates the complexity of this issue. Would the Senator agree also that in order to sort through all of those complexities----

Mr. GRAHAM. Since I don't think Senator Shelby has arrived----

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to complete my question and give Senator Kerrey 2 minutes to respond.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely proud to introduce the ``Worksite Child Care Development Act of 1999'' with Senators Hutchison, Kohl, and Jeffords. This measure will make child care more accessible and affordable to the many millions of Americans who find it not only important, but necessary, to work. This legislation would grant tax credits to employers who assist their employees with child care expenses by providing: A one-time 50 percent tax credit not to exceed $100,000 for startup expenses, including expansion and renovations of an employer-sponsored child care facility; A 50 percent tax credit for employers not to exceed $25,000 annually for the operating costs to maintain a child care facility; and A 50 percent tax credit yearly not to exceed $50,000 for this employers who provide payments or reimbursements for their employees' child care costs. Why is this legislation important? First, the workplace has changed over the years. In 1947, just over one-quarter of all mothers will children between 6 and 17 years of age were in the labor force. By 1996, their labor force participation rate had tripled. Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 65 percent of all women with children under 18 years of age are now working and that the growth in the number of working women will continue into the next century. Second, child care is one of the most pressing social issues of the day. It impacts every family, including the poor, the working poor, middle class families, and stay-at-home parents. Last June, I hosted a Florida statewide summit on child care where over 500 residents of my State shared with me their concerns and frustration on child care issues. They told me that quality child care, when available, is often not affordable. Those who qualify told me there are often long waiting lists for subsidized child care. They told me that working parents struggle to find ways to cope with the often conflicting time demands of both work and child care. They told me that their school-age children are at risk because before and after-school supervised care programs are not readily available. Mr. President, quality child care should be a concern to all Americans. The care and nurturing that children receive early in life has a profound influence on their future--and their future is our future. In the 21st century, women will comprise more than 60 percent of all new entrants into the labor market. A large proportion of these women are expected to be mothers of children under the age of 6. The implications for employers are clear. They understand that our Nation's work force is changing rapidly and that those employers who can help their employees with child care will have a competitive advantage. In Florida, for instance, Ryder System's Kids' Corner in Miami has enrolled approximately 100 children in a top-notch day care program. I commend the many corporations in Florida and across the nation that have taken the important step of providing child care for its employees. Many smaller businesses would like to join them, but do not have the resources to offer child care to employees. Our legislation would help to lower the obstacle to on-site child care. Mr. President, we believe that this legislation will assist businesses in providing attractive, cost-effective tools for recruiting and retaining employees in a tight labor market. We believe that encouraging businesses to help employees care for children will make it easier for parents to be more involved in their children's education. Most of all, Mr. President, we believe that this bill is good for employers and families and will go far in addressing the issue of child care for working families of America. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Chief Executive Officers of the Ryder Corporation and Bright Horizons Corporation be included in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely proud to introduce the ``Worksite Child Care Development Act of 1999'' with Senators Hutchison, Kohl, and Jeffords. This measure will make child care more accessible and affordable to the many millions of Americans who find it not only important, but necessary, to work. This legislation would grant tax credits to employers who assist their employees with child care expenses by providing: A one-time 50 percent tax credit not to exceed $100,000 for startup expenses, including expansion and renovations of an employer-sponsored child care facility; A 50 percent tax credit for employers not to exceed $25,000 annually for the operating costs to maintain a child care facility; and A 50 percent tax credit yearly not to exceed $50,000 for this employers who provide payments or reimbursements for their employees' child care costs. Why is this legislation important? First, the workplace has changed over the years. In 1947, just over one-quarter of all mothers will children between 6 and 17 years of age were in the labor force. By 1996, their labor force participation rate had tripled. Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 65 percent of all women with children under 18 years of age are now working and that the growth in the number of working women will continue into the next century. Second, child care is one of the most pressing social issues of the day. It impacts every family, including the poor, the working poor, middle class families, and stay-at-home parents. Last June, I hosted a Florida statewide summit on child care where over 500 residents of my State shared with me their concerns and frustration on child care issues. They told me that quality child care, when available, is often not affordable. Those who qualify told me there are often long waiting lists for subsidized child care. They told me that working parents struggle to find ways to cope with the often conflicting time demands of both work and child care. They told me that their school-age children are at risk because before and after-school supervised care programs are not readily available. Mr. President, quality child care should be a concern to all Americans. The care and nurturing that children receive early in life has a profound influence on their future--and their future is our future. In the 21st century, women will comprise more than 60 percent of all new entrants into the labor market. A large proportion of these women are expected to be mothers of children under the age of 6. The implications for employers are clear. They understand that our Nation's work force is changing rapidly and that those employers who can help their employees with child care will have a competitive advantage. In Florida, for instance, Ryder System's Kids' Corner in Miami has enrolled approximately 100 children in a top-notch day care program. I commend the many corporations in Florida and across the nation that have taken the important step of providing child care for its employees. Many smaller businesses would like to join them, but do not have the resources to offer child care to employees. Our legislation would help to lower the obstacle to on-site child care. Mr. President, we believe that this legislation will assist businesses in providing attractive, cost-effective tools for recruiting and retaining employees in a tight labor market. We believe that encouraging businesses to help employees care for children will make it easier for parents to be more involved in their children's education. Most of all, Mr. President, we believe that this bill is good for employers and families and will go far in addressing the issue of child care for working families of America. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Chief Executive Officers of the Ryder Corporation and Bright Horizons Corporation be included in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a special milestone involving one of America's premier business and civic leaders, Mr. Anthony ``Tony'' Burns of Miami, Florida. A quarter-century ago, Tony Burns began his career with Ryder System, Inc. in 1974, as the Director of Planning and Treasurer. Under his guidance, Ryder expanded to become the largest truck leasing and rental company in the world, and the largest public transit management company in the United States. Now serving as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tony celebrates his 25th anniversary with the firm on June 3, 1999. While elevating Ryder's corporate status, Tony has helped lead the effort to make the workplace more family friendly. He has implemented programs such as Kids' Corner, the Diversity Council, and a flextime policy to allow parents greater schedule flexibility. In addition, Tony Burns personifies community involvement, including service to the Boy Scouts of America. Mr. President, as we approach a new millennium and look back on the all-but-completed Twentieth Century, we are reminded of the importance of the dedicated people who strive to improve both their workplace and their community. I commend Tony Burns for his business acumen, his leadership, and his commitment to his company and the south Florida community. As he prepares to celebrate his 25th anniversary with Ryder, I ask you to join me and his many friends in extending congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this resolution designates the first Sunday of June as National Child's Day. Our children are our future. Over 5 million children, however, go hungry at some point each month. There has been a 60 percent increase in the number of children needing foster care in the last ten years. Many children today face crises of grave proportions, especially as they enter their adolescent years. The designation of National Child's Day helps us to focus on our children's needs and recognize their accomplishments. It encourages families to spend more quality time together and highlights the special importance of the child in the family unit. In these crucial times, it is important that we show our support for the youth of America. It is our hope that this simple resolution will foster family togetherness and ensure that our children receive the attention they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in designating the first Sunday in June as National Child's Day. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not have an objection, but I would like to make an inquiry. At some point, I would like to be in a position to do what Senator Allard has done, which is to introduce an amendment and then lay it aside for the appropriate consideration at its due time. Would it be appropriate, after we have taken action on the unanimous consent, or as part of the unanimous consent, that I would be given an opportunity to introduce an amendment and then lay it aside?