Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as we prepare for next week's start of the 1999 Hurricane Season, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in introducing legislation that will help protect Florida from economic devastation in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Our legislation would amend Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code to grant tax-exempt status to state chartered, not-for-profit insurers serving markets in which commercial insurance is not available. In our state, this legislation will primarily assist the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association (FWUA) and the Florida Residential Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association (JUA). The Florida Windstorm Association was created in 1970. Twenty-two years later, in 1992, the legislature authorized the Joint Underwriting Association. These organizations operate as residual market mechanisms. They provide residential property and casualty insurance coverage for those residents who need, but are unable to procure through the voluntary market. The JUA was created in direct response to $16 billion in covered losses during Hurricane Andrew. The destructive force of Andrew rendered a number of property insurance companies insolvent. Other firms recovered from the catastrophe by withdrawing from Florida markets. During those fortunate years when we are not impacted by major hurricanes or other natural catastrophes, the FWUA and JUA take in more premiums that are paid out in claims and expenses. Florida law prevents those funds from being distributed so that needed reserves will accumulate in preparation for inevitable disasters. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service penalizes Florida for this responsible, forward thinking practice. It requires that 35% of those funds be sent to Washington as federal income taxes rather than used to fund reserves. Designating state chartered, non profit insurers as tax-exempt will help Florida accumulate the necessary reserves to pay claims brought on by a catastrophe. State law also authorizes the FWUA and the JUA to assess property insurance policyholders for losses generated by natural disasters. Tax exemptions should reduce the frequency and severity of assessments levied against individual policyholders, because it would make more funds available to cover losses which otherwise would be paid for by higher assessments on policyholders. Mr. President, even seven years later, Hurricane Andrew is still a nightmarish memory for Floridians. The 1999 Hurricane season will begin on June 1, 1999. The National Weather Service expects this hurricane season--which begins next Tuesday, to be another active storm season. It is imperative that the federal government avoids the comfortable habit of ignoring lessons presented by Andrew and other recent catastrophes. This legislation has bipartisan support in the state's Congressional delegation. It is backed by our state governor, our insurance Commissioner, our state Senate President and House Speaker. Also, Mr. President, the Joint Committee on Taxation has ruled that this legislation will have a negligible effect on the federal budget. Our legislation is extremely important to homeowners and businesses throughout Florida, all whom are subject to assessment if reserves are not sufficient to pay claims in the event of a catastrophe. Florida remains sensitive to the perils of nature. Enactment of this legislation will permit our state to prepare for the next Hurricane Andrew while alleviating some of the economic hardship exacted on Florida property owners.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as we prepare for next week's start of the 1999 Hurricane Season, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in introducing legislation that will help protect Florida from economic devastation in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Our legislation would amend Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code to grant tax-exempt status to state chartered, not-for-profit insurers serving markets in which commercial insurance is not available. In our state, this legislation will primarily assist the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association (FWUA) and the Florida Residential Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association (JUA). The Florida Windstorm Association was created in 1970. Twenty-two years later, in 1992, the legislature authorized the Joint Underwriting Association. These organizations operate as residual market mechanisms. They provide residential property and casualty insurance coverage for those residents who need, but are unable to procure through the voluntary market. The JUA was created in direct response to $16 billion in covered losses during Hurricane Andrew. The destructive force of Andrew rendered a number of property insurance companies insolvent. Other firms recovered from the catastrophe by withdrawing from Florida markets. During those fortunate years when we are not impacted by major hurricanes or other natural catastrophes, the FWUA and JUA take in more premiums that are paid out in claims and expenses. Florida law prevents those funds from being distributed so that needed reserves will accumulate in preparation for inevitable disasters. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service penalizes Florida for this responsible, forward thinking practice. It requires that 35% of those funds be sent to Washington as federal income taxes rather than used to fund reserves. Designating state chartered, non profit insurers as tax-exempt will help Florida accumulate the necessary reserves to pay claims brought on by a catastrophe. State law also authorizes the FWUA and the JUA to assess property insurance policyholders for losses generated by natural disasters. Tax exemptions should reduce the frequency and severity of assessments levied against individual policyholders, because it would make more funds available to cover losses which otherwise would be paid for by higher assessments on policyholders. Mr. President, even seven years later, Hurricane Andrew is still a nightmarish memory for Floridians. The 1999 Hurricane season will begin on June 1, 1999. The National Weather Service expects this hurricane season--which begins next Tuesday, to be another active storm season. It is imperative that the federal government avoids the comfortable habit of ignoring lessons presented by Andrew and other recent catastrophes. This legislation has bipartisan support in the state's Congressional delegation. It is backed by our state governor, our insurance Commissioner, our state Senate President and House Speaker. Also, Mr. President, the Joint Committee on Taxation has ruled that this legislation will have a negligible effect on the federal budget. Our legislation is extremely important to homeowners and businesses throughout Florida, all whom are subject to assessment if reserves are not sufficient to pay claims in the event of a catastrophe. Florida remains sensitive to the perils of nature. Enactment of this legislation will permit our state to prepare for the next Hurricane Andrew while alleviating some of the economic hardship exacted on Florida property owners.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will reluctantly support this legislation because it contains important issues. It contains the funding for our troops in the Balkans. It contains the funds to meet our humanitarian responsibilities to our neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean. It also retains a provision--which I know the Presiding Officer has strongly supported--to clearly state that the funds the States secured through their tobacco settlements will be funds to be managed, administered, and prioritized at the State level. Mr. President, I share many of the concerns of my colleague from Virginia. I share those concerns because what we are doing is to chip away at the financial security of 38 million Americans--38 million Americans who receive Social Security income. Forty percent of those 38 million Americans would have fallen below the poverty line but for Social Security. Why is this relevant to this debate? It is relevant because we are on the verge of draining an additional $12 billion from the Social Security fund through this legislation. We had three choices when we started this debate. One choice was to do the tough thing, to reprioritize our spending, to say that if it is important that we spend money on our humanitarian needs in Central America and the Caribbean, then let us reduce spending somewhere else. I am pleased to say that for that account we in fact have done so. We had another choice, which was to say let's raise revenue. If we can't find an area where we think it is appropriate to reduce spending, then let's be prepared to pay for this emergency. Third, we could say let's use the accumulated surplus that we have, which today is a 100-percent surplus generated by the Social Security trust fund. As to the $12 billion in this legislation, we have elected the third course of action. Mr. President, this is not the first time we have done so. In fact, it is not the first time in the last 8 months that we have done so. Last October, in the waning hours of the budget negotiations, Congress passed a $532 billion omnibus appropriations bill. Tucked into that bill was $21.4 billion in so-called emergency spending. The effect of that designation then--as it is today--was to relieve Congress of the necessity of finding some other reprioritized spending to eliminate in order to pay for this emergency. But because of the emergency designation, the $21.4 billion in October could be approved without offsets, and because of the emergency designation today, we will approve an additional $12 billion of expenditure without offsets. Let's look at the numbers. In 1998, Social Security was $99 billion. The first use of that money was to offset $27 billion in deficit in the rest of the Federal budget. An additional $3 billion was used to pay for emergency outlays, leaving us with a total surplus not of $99 billion but of $69 billion. This year, 1999, we are projecting a $127 billion surplus. Again, we have used $3 billion to offset deficits elsewhere in the budget, $13 billion for emergency outlays, and we are about to spend another $14.6 billion for emergencies, reducing our surplus from $127 billion down to $96 billion. And for the year 2000, we have already carried forward some of the emergency spending from 1999. Again, we will be reducing the Social Security surplus by $10 billion. This is from where we are paying for these emergencies. Mr. President, the repetitive misuse of the emergency process is continuing to erode the Social Security trust fund. This misuse is done in a manner that precludes most Members of Congress from any meaningful role in what has traditionally been accepted as emergencies. We have been denied the opportunity to participate in a determination as to whether the proposed emergency expenditure met the standards of being sudden, urgent and unforeseen needs, which is the standard that has traditionally been used for emergencies. The same Congress that claimed to be saving the surplus for Social Security--committed to a ``lockbox'' for Social Security--is again actively participating in raids on the Social Security trust fund through the back door. Willie Sutton once was asked, ``Why do you rob banks?'' His answer: ``That's where the money is.'' We may manufacture the strongest vault to protect the Social Security surplus from Willie Sutton. But if we let Jesse James continue to steal the money on the train before it gets to the bank, we will have the same result. The money will not be there for our and future generations of Social Security beneficiaries. Social Security is a federally mandated program. We have a legal obligation to our children and grandchildren to secure the surplus for its intended purpose--Social Security. We must assure that the budget surplus is not squandered on questionable emergency items in the future. Mr. President, with your support and that of Senator Snowe of Maine, we have introduced legislation which has as its objective to establish permanent safeguards that will assure that nonemergency items are subject to careful scrutiny and not inserted into emergency spending bills to circumvent the normal legislative process. I urge our colleagues' support for this legislation. 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. Private citizens are warned against falsely dialing 911. Congress should exercise the same restraint in using its emergency authority. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Colton Campbell be afforded floor privileges during the duration of my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a solemn tribute to an educator and clergyman whose life spanned most of this great century: the Right Reverend Marion Bowman of Florida. Father Marion Bowman passed away last week, and was buried on Friday, May 14, 1999, at the St. Leo Abbey Cemetery. As coach, teacher and president, Father Bowman was a guiding force at St. Leo College in St. Leo, FL. He is survived by a large and loving family, and a legion of alumni and friends of St. Leo College. Born on June 30, 1905, in Lebanon, KY, he made his first profession of vows twenty years later, and was ordained as a priest in 1931. His association with St. Leo began as a young man; he graduated from St. Leo College Prep School in 1923. Father Bowman served as the third abbot of St. Leo Abbey, from 1954- 69. On April 27, 1970, Father Bowman was elected president of St. Leo College and served on the institution's Board of Trustees as well. A versatile man, Father Bowman taught math, physics and chemistry at the prep school, and for four years was St. Leo's sole coach, heading the football, baseball, basketball and track teams. He also served as athletic director, and played a key role in converting St. Leo from a prep school to a college. In 1971, St. Leo College bestowed an honorary Doctor of Humanities degree on Father Bowman. 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 impart knowledge, teach values, coach athletes and manage our schools. Father Marion Bowman--teacher, cleric and friend of St. Leo College--did all those things and many more, and we salute his dedication and his multiple contributions.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in the introduction of the REIT Modernization Act, legislation that would modernize the tax rules that apply to real estate investment trusts (``REITs''). REITs were created in 1960 to give small investors the ability to invest in income producing real estate. But it was not until the early part of this decade that REITs emerged as a significant factor in real estate finance. Their repid growth then contributed in a major way to the development of real estate markets. The real estate industry is experiencing change today as owners seek to maximize returns by taking greater advantage of their employee expertise and tenant base. This bill will better enable REITS to expand their services to tenants and customers. The Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget includes a proposal to change the rules governing REITs. The legislation that we are introducing today is largely based on that proposal. It would permit REITs to establish taxable subsidiaries to offer services that a REIT cannot offer directly to tenants and third parties. Stringent rules are included to ensure that the subsidiary would be fully subject to taxation. Current rules designed to ensure that REIT income is primarily earned from real estate activities would continue to apply. The bill also modifies the tratment of health care facilities to ensure that patients' lives are not disrupted in the event of an expired lease, and restores the 90% distribution rule that had previously applied to REITs. REITs play a positive role in the real estate economy that has helped to stabilize property values and provide liquidity to the market. As long as the basic limitations on REIT activities are preserved, those tax rules which impose restraints on REIT activities must be modified. In my own state of Florida, REITs have invested more than $13 billion in the Florida economy, and are an important source of investment capital that has reinvigorated real estate markets. I want to thank Senator Mack for his leadership on this issue and I welcome the bipartisan support this measure has received from members of the Senate Finance Committee, along with others, who have joined as cosponsors of the bill. I look forward to working with them in the months ahead.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in the introduction of the REIT Modernization Act, legislation that would modernize the tax rules that apply to real estate investment trusts (``REITs''). REITs were created in 1960 to give small investors the ability to invest in income producing real estate. But it was not until the early part of this decade that REITs emerged as a significant factor in real estate finance. Their repid growth then contributed in a major way to the development of real estate markets. The real estate industry is experiencing change today as owners seek to maximize returns by taking greater advantage of their employee expertise and tenant base. This bill will better enable REITS to expand their services to tenants and customers. The Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget includes a proposal to change the rules governing REITs. The legislation that we are introducing today is largely based on that proposal. It would permit REITs to establish taxable subsidiaries to offer services that a REIT cannot offer directly to tenants and third parties. Stringent rules are included to ensure that the subsidiary would be fully subject to taxation. Current rules designed to ensure that REIT income is primarily earned from real estate activities would continue to apply. The bill also modifies the tratment of health care facilities to ensure that patients' lives are not disrupted in the event of an expired lease, and restores the 90% distribution rule that had previously applied to REITs. REITs play a positive role in the real estate economy that has helped to stabilize property values and provide liquidity to the market. As long as the basic limitations on REIT activities are preserved, those tax rules which impose restraints on REIT activities must be modified. In my own state of Florida, REITs have invested more than $13 billion in the Florida economy, and are an important source of investment capital that has reinvigorated real estate markets. I want to thank Senator Mack for his leadership on this issue and I welcome the bipartisan support this measure has received from members of the Senate Finance Committee, along with others, who have joined as cosponsors of the bill. I look forward to working with them in the months ahead.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator Mack to introduce the Affordable Housing Opportunity Act of 1999. This legislation would raise the annual limit on state authority to allocate low-income housing tax credits from $1.25 to $1.75 per capita, and to index the cap to inflation. Since its creation in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the low income housing tax credit program has been a tremendous success that has generated nearly a million units of housing for low and moderate income families. In my home state of Florida the tax credit has produced over 52,000 affordable rental units, valued at over $2.2 billion, including 3,300 apartments in 1997. This housing tax credit is a valuable incentive for developers to build and rehabilitate low-income housing. It encourages the construction and renovation of low income housing by reducing the tax liability placed on developers of affordable homes. The credit is based on the costs of development as well as the percentage of units devoted to low-income families. The low income housing tax credit not only helps developers but also benefits families. Those families that get up and go to work every day to earn their rent and mortgage payments, the low income housing tax credit provides families with an important stake in maintaining self- sufficiency. By supporting this credit we make the American dream more available to all Americans. This credit has succeeded as a catalyst in bringing new sources of funding to low income housing development. This is particularly important at a time when decreasing appropriations for federally- assisted housing and the elimination of other tax incentives for rental housing production have only grown. While this success is gratifying, we should not take for granted the continued growth of this program. Under the current formula used to fund this program, each state is located $1.25 multiplied by the State's population. Unlike other provisions of the Tax Code, this formula has not been adjusted since the credit was created in 1986. During the same period, inflation has eroded the credit's purchasing power by nearly 45 percent, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. This cap is strangling state capacity to meet the pressing low income housing needs. By increasing the cap on this credit to $1.75, we will free the 12 year cap on housing credit from it current limitations, as requested by our Nation's governors, and we will liberate states' capacity to help millions of Americans who still have no decent, safe, affordable place to live. A brief look at the history of the housing credit provides ample evidence of why we need our legislation. Nationwide, demand for housing credits outstrips supply by a ratio of three to one. In 1998, states received applications requesting more than 1.2 billion in housing credits--far surpassing the $365 million in the credit authority available to allocate that year. This trend coupled with the fact that every year nearly 100,000 low cost apartments are demolished, abandoned, or converted to market rate use makes clear the need for this legislation. Increasing the cap as I propose would allow states to finance approximately 27,000 more critically needed low income apartments each year using the housing credit. In the last Congress, sixty seven Senators cosponsored this legislation, including nearly two-thirds of the Finance Committee, raising the low income housing tax credit to $1.75 and indexing it for inflation. Nearly 70 percent of the House Ways and Means Committee and a total of 299 House Members cosponsored legislation proposing the same increase. That indicates just how much support this program has in the Congress. Also, the Administration, the nation's governors and mayors, other state and local government groups, and the affordable housing community strongly support this increase. I am confident with all this support that this measure will finally pass this year. I urge all my colleagues to embrace this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator Mack to introduce the Affordable Housing Opportunity Act of 1999. This legislation would raise the annual limit on state authority to allocate low-income housing tax credits from $1.25 to $1.75 per capita, and to index the cap to inflation. Since its creation in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the low income housing tax credit program has been a tremendous success that has generated nearly a million units of housing for low and moderate income families. In my home state of Florida the tax credit has produced over 52,000 affordable rental units, valued at over $2.2 billion, including 3,300 apartments in 1997. This housing tax credit is a valuable incentive for developers to build and rehabilitate low-income housing. It encourages the construction and renovation of low income housing by reducing the tax liability placed on developers of affordable homes. The credit is based on the costs of development as well as the percentage of units devoted to low-income families. The low income housing tax credit not only helps developers but also benefits families. Those families that get up and go to work every day to earn their rent and mortgage payments, the low income housing tax credit provides families with an important stake in maintaining self- sufficiency. By supporting this credit we make the American dream more available to all Americans. This credit has succeeded as a catalyst in bringing new sources of funding to low income housing development. This is particularly important at a time when decreasing appropriations for federally- assisted housing and the elimination of other tax incentives for rental housing production have only grown. While this success is gratifying, we should not take for granted the continued growth of this program. Under the current formula used to fund this program, each state is located $1.25 multiplied by the State's population. Unlike other provisions of the Tax Code, this formula has not been adjusted since the credit was created in 1986. During the same period, inflation has eroded the credit's purchasing power by nearly 45 percent, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. This cap is strangling state capacity to meet the pressing low income housing needs. By increasing the cap on this credit to $1.75, we will free the 12 year cap on housing credit from it current limitations, as requested by our Nation's governors, and we will liberate states' capacity to help millions of Americans who still have no decent, safe, affordable place to live. A brief look at the history of the housing credit provides ample evidence of why we need our legislation. Nationwide, demand for housing credits outstrips supply by a ratio of three to one. In 1998, states received applications requesting more than 1.2 billion in housing credits--far surpassing the $365 million in the credit authority available to allocate that year. This trend coupled with the fact that every year nearly 100,000 low cost apartments are demolished, abandoned, or converted to market rate use makes clear the need for this legislation. Increasing the cap as I propose would allow states to finance approximately 27,000 more critically needed low income apartments each year using the housing credit. In the last Congress, sixty seven Senators cosponsored this legislation, including nearly two-thirds of the Finance Committee, raising the low income housing tax credit to $1.75 and indexing it for inflation. Nearly 70 percent of the House Ways and Means Committee and a total of 299 House Members cosponsored legislation proposing the same increase. That indicates just how much support this program has in the Congress. Also, the Administration, the nation's governors and mayors, other state and local government groups, and the affordable housing community strongly support this increase. I am confident with all this support that this measure will finally pass this year. I urge all my colleagues to embrace this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Mack, Cleland, Lincoln, and Robb, to discuss an issue of great importance to the people of Florida and the nation: the availability of adequate water supplies. During the last decade, many states have experienced unprecedented population growth. For example, Florida's population increased by 15 percent, or almost 2 million people, over the last 8 years. We have directed resources towards improvements in our highway infrastructure to accommodate increased use. However, an area that has not received adequate attention but has the potential to negatively impact human health and the environment as well as limit economic growth is the conservation and development of adequate water supplies. A number of eastern states, including Florida, are now experiencing water supply problems similar to those in the arid West. We must act now to prevent salt water intrusion into our aquifers, additional loss of wetlands, and curbs on economic development due to inadequate water supplies. As we prepare for the 21st century, demand for water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses will continue to increase. In just one of Florida's regional water management districts, the Governing Board has committed $10 million per year since 1994 to providing financial assistance for local alternative water source projects such as conservation, wastewater reclamation, stormwater reuse, and desalination. When fully implemented, the 23 currently active or completed projects will provide more than 150 million gallons of water per day to supply existing and future needs. These projects will also reduce groundwater withdrawals, rehydrate stressed lakes and wetlands, increase ground water recharge, enhanced wildlife habitat, and improve flood control. We are today introducing legislation to address this critical public health, environmental, and economic issue. The ``Alternative Water Sources Act of 1999'' establishes a federal grant program for eastern states that is similar to a program already operated by the Bureau of Reclamation for western states. The program will provide federal matching funds for the design and construction of water reclamation, reuse, and conservation projects. The bill authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants to agencies with responsibility for water resource development, for the purpose of maximizing available water supplies while protecting the environment. Under this program, water supply agencies will submit grant proposals to EPA. The proposed projects must be part of a long range water resource management plan. If approved, the federal government would provide half the cost of the project. This legislation authorizes $75 million per year over the next five years to fund alternative water source projects.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Mack, Cleland, Lincoln, and Robb, to discuss an issue of great importance to the people of Florida and the nation: the availability of adequate water supplies. During the last decade, many states have experienced unprecedented population growth. For example, Florida's population increased by 15 percent, or almost 2 million people, over the last 8 years. We have directed resources towards improvements in our highway infrastructure to accommodate increased use. However, an area that has not received adequate attention but has the potential to negatively impact human health and the environment as well as limit economic growth is the conservation and development of adequate water supplies. A number of eastern states, including Florida, are now experiencing water supply problems similar to those in the arid West. We must act now to prevent salt water intrusion into our aquifers, additional loss of wetlands, and curbs on economic development due to inadequate water supplies. As we prepare for the 21st century, demand for water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses will continue to increase. In just one of Florida's regional water management districts, the Governing Board has committed $10 million per year since 1994 to providing financial assistance for local alternative water source projects such as conservation, wastewater reclamation, stormwater reuse, and desalination. When fully implemented, the 23 currently active or completed projects will provide more than 150 million gallons of water per day to supply existing and future needs. These projects will also reduce groundwater withdrawals, rehydrate stressed lakes and wetlands, increase ground water recharge, enhanced wildlife habitat, and improve flood control. We are today introducing legislation to address this critical public health, environmental, and economic issue. The ``Alternative Water Sources Act of 1999'' establishes a federal grant program for eastern states that is similar to a program already operated by the Bureau of Reclamation for western states. The program will provide federal matching funds for the design and construction of water reclamation, reuse, and conservation projects. The bill authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants to agencies with responsibility for water resource development, for the purpose of maximizing available water supplies while protecting the environment. Under this program, water supply agencies will submit grant proposals to EPA. The proposed projects must be part of a long range water resource management plan. If approved, the federal government would provide half the cost of the project. This legislation authorizes $75 million per year over the next five years to fund alternative water source projects.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to offer a tribute to Dr. Patricia L. Clements for her years of work on behalf of historical preservation in Florida. As we prepare for a new millennium, with its promise of inventions and technical advances beyond our comprehension, we are reminded of the importance of preserving and understanding our past. Toward that end, Dr. Clements has helped lead the historical preservation effort in Florida, particularly in preserving and intrepreting women's history. Women helped build and lead Florida, and their roles have been preserved in myriad ways by Dr. Clements and her colleagues. She has been a pioneer in producing audio biographies of prominent Florida women. Dr. Clements is the founder of the Inaugural Gown Collection, housed at the Museum of Florida History, including textiles dating to 1901, nearly a century ago. Meanwhile, she has collected more than 100 artifacts for the First Families exhibit at the Museum of Florida History. Strong public interest prompted the museum to extend the exhibit by three months. Florida has many ways of recognizing the contributions of outstanding women, one of which is through the Florida Women's Hall of Fame. Dr. Clements is the audiobiographer of women inducted into this elite group, and is a member of the Florida Women's Hall of Fame selection committee. Mr. President, we live in a fast-paced world, and can expect mobility and the pace of the flow of information to increase in the next century. As we embrace the future, we salute those who preserve the past and help us to understand our heritage.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr, President, today I am delighted to have the opportunity to salute the 1999 honorees of the Dr. Nan S. Hutchison Broward Senior Hall of Fame Award. These outstanding volunteers have contributed time, talents and love toward benefitting the residents of Broward County. On May 6, 1999, eleven new members selected for this prestigious honor will be at ceremonies celebrating their selection, and their names will be added to a commemorative plaque housed in the Broward County Government Building. This year's honorees are: Panchitta Chishom, Estelle Ernstoff, Commissioner Sam Goldsmith, Max Klein, Bill Kling, Ella Anderson Lawrence, Madolyn Markham, Hyman Moskowitz, Hattie Robinson, Marvin Simon and John Washburn. Panchitta Chishom has dedicated her life to serving the community as a teacher for 38 years in the Broward County School system and as a volunteer. She devotes her wisdom, generosity and tireless efforts to various groups including the Northwest Federated Woman's Club, Broward General Medical Center and the NAACP. Estelle Ernstoff has a passion for volunteer work that has enriched the lives of those in her community. Among the work she has done for various causes, she has faithfully arranged bi-annual blood drives while supporting the Cancer Association and the Memorial Manor Nursing Home Auxiliary. Her devotion to improving the lives of others has made her a role model for her community. Commissioner Sam Goldsmith has patiently and steadfastly tended to the needs and concerns of the citizens of Coconut Creek. Besides serving as a former mayor and current city commissioner, Sam has devoted additional precious time to volunteer for several organizations including the Florida Council of Aging, American Legion Post #170 and Board of Trustees of Northwest Regional Hospital. Max Klein has been a determined and energetic activist for the citizens of Broward County, and in particular, the City of Lauderhill. His participation in journalism and the political process has brought attention to the issues and concerns of elderly. His compassion extends to all residents, young and old, of Broward County. Bill Kling has spent his adult life campaigning for the rights and benefits of war veterans. He was instrumental in establishing the Veterans Administration outpatient clinic in Oakland Park. His compassion and perseverance have served the community in numerous ways. Ella Anderson Lawrence has dedicated her life to others through her generous community service. From distributing lap robes to local nursing homes to preparing and serving meals for her church, Bethlehem Lutheran, she has contributed her time, energy and kindness to her entire neighborhood and its residents. Madolyn Markham has made a pledge over many years and across various interests to help all those in need in her community. As President and Director of C. Robert Markham Foundation, she has supported numerous causes, including The Twelve Step House, United Way and Kids in Distress. Her charity and grace have touched the lives of many people, young and old. Hyman Moskowitz has a strong sense of community that is evident through his many accomplishments and volunteer work. His efforts have led to the establishment of the Northwest Focal Point Senior Center and a monthly award honoring ``Students of the Month'' by the Margate City Commission. His dedication to volunteering enriches the lives of everyone around him. Hattie Robinson shows her compassion for humanity through her generous good deeds to her church, the 15th Street Baptist Church of Christ, and throughout her neighborhood. She has fed the hungry, distributed clothing to the needy and been an active member of the Broward County Foster Grandparent Program. Her kindness and charity are not limited by boundaries, but instead touch the lives of all whom she meets. Marvin Simon has been a dedicated and enthusiastic supporter of Broward County's senior population. His perseverance resulted in the establishment of an Emergency Medical Services base on the Pine Island Ridge Condominium grounds. His devotion extends past his neighbors through his active participation in various organizations including the Gilda's Club and the Jewish War Veterans, Post 730. John Washburn has a gift of giving that has enhanced the lives of all those who have been touched by his generosity. He volunteers for numerous organizations including the Cooperative Feeding Program, Manna Share a Meal program and Optimist Club of West Broward/Lauderhill. His commitment to the community has benefitted all, especially the needy and the sick, the young and the elderly. Florida and Broward County are fortunate to have these inspiring senior citizens who have given so much to their communities. I congratulate them today and wish for them many more productive and healthy years.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, over the last several years--according to our colleague from North Carolina, over the last 40 years--we have heard multiple warnings about the Y2K computer problem. We have heard how this problem will overwhelm our Nation's transportation networks, financial institutions, business sectors, and State and local communities. I bring to the attention of the Senate this afternoon another institution that could be overwhelmed by the rush to prepare for the new millennium, and that institution is one of our direct responsibilities--the Federal courts. Just over a month ago, the Judicial Conference of the United States-- the principal policymaking body for the Federal courts, chaired by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court--asked Congress to create nearly 70 new permanent and temporary judgeships: 11 on the appellate level and 58 in Federal district courts. This was an unusually large request by the Judicial Conference. It was also an urgent request. The Judicial Conference has made biennial pleas for help from Congress. Every 2 years, the Conference has recommended additional judgeships to be created in order to maintain currency with the capacity of the judicial system of the Federal Government of the United States with the caseload that system was being asked to accommodate. I am saddened to have to state and to indicate to my colleagues and the American people that Congress has not created so much as one new Federal judgeship since December of 1990--almost 9 years ago. Since December of 1990, appellate filings have increased by more than 30 percent. District court filings have grown by more than 20 percent. But this increase is not equally distributed across the Nation. In my home State of Florida, we have seen a worse--a much worse-- situation. The Middle and Southern Districts of Florida have seen case filings increase by over 60 percent in the last 9 years without one additional Federal judge being added to the Middle or Southern Districts. What has been the consequence of this failure of Congress to respond to the legitimate request of the Federal judiciary for additional resources to mediate these additional case demands? This has resulted in over 1,100 criminal defendants having cases currently pending in the Middle District of Florida. On the civil side, more than 5,900 cases have yet to receive final disposition. The reasons for this need are many. But one stands out in the context of the legislation we are now debating, the legislation to turn responsibility for Y2K litigation to the Federal courts; and that is, the increasing willingness of Congress to federalize what were formerly, and I believe properly, State civil and criminal legal issues. In other forums we have addressed the federalization of criminal statutes, and thus I will not dwell on that subject today. But just suffice it to say this one fact: It has been now some 135 years since the end of the Civil War. Of all of the Federal criminal statutes enacted since the end of the Civil War, 30 percent of them have been enacted since 1980, or in the last 19 years. So we are in an era in which there has been a rush to create new Federal criminal statutes. While we can and should debate the merits of this trend, what cannot be debated is the fact that this has dramatically increased the burdens on the Federal courts and their ability to dispense justice. This trend is no less prevalent on the civil side as it is on the criminal side. In the last Congress, we considered major legal overhauls that would have preempted State tort and property laws. In 1998, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated: [S]hould Congress consider expanding the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, it should do so cautiously and only after it has considered all the alternatives and the incremental impact the increase will have on both the need for additional judicial resources and the traditional role of the federal judiciary. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today runs counter to that sage advice. The very nature of the Y2K problem means that multiple plaintiffs will have similar claims against common defendants--a situation ripe for a profusion of class action lawsuits. By giving the Federal judiciary original jurisdiction over Y2K class actions, Congress will sentence Federal courts to overburdened caseloads far beyond the crisis that we currently face. I want to make it clear that I recognize the seriousness of the Y2K problem and the need to address some of the related legal issues. Senators Bennett and Dodd deserve tremendous credit for their committee's assessment of how the U.S. Government is preparing for the Y2K problem. I commend Senator McCain for his forward-thinking focus on the legal ramifications of the millennium bug. But I have serious reservations about making Federal courts a clearinghouse for Y2K lawsuits of any kind. Proponents of this measure have argued that it is necessary to federalize the Y2K litigation in order to establish national uniformity in this area of the law. This view runs counter to basic tenets of federalism. According to the National Governors' Association, 39 States currently have legislation enacted or pending that could resolve this issue at the State level. As such, the burden of proof falls on the proponents of this legislation to show why the Federal Government, contrary to two centuries of tradition of State responsibility for civil litigation, is in the best position to deal with this issue. Such an action of federalization amounts to a theft of what has traditionally been the State responsibility for these types of cases. As such, I will oppose cloture on this legislation. Mr. President, thus far, I know of no plan whatsoever to address the massive new workload that legislative action such as the federalization of Y2K cases could impose on the Federal judiciary, particularly the U.S. district courts. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the potential legal cases that will be generated by the Y2K challenge, but also to thoughtfully consider where those cases should best be heard. I believe the presumption should be that those cases should be heard where most of our civil litigation is heard, which is in State courts. I do not believe that the proponents of this change have effectively advocated for the necessity of changing that basic tradition in American jurisprudence. We must be vigilant, as Members of Congress, to avoid legislative action that will increase the workload on our Federal courts without a commensurate increase in judicial resources. If we fail to do so, the end result will be justice delayed and justice denied. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have asked recognition this afternoon to commend the firefighters providing relief to the State of Florida and its citizens, which is once again besieged by fire due to excessive drought conditions. This, unfortunately, is not the first occasion on which I have risen to speak about forest fires in Florida. The natural conditions in the State have been altered to the point where fires, normally a natural and essential part of the pine forests of this region, have burned uncontrollably, causing damage to local communities, private homes, and to the Florida forestry industry. Last year, Florida sustained almost $300 million in private fire- related damage, and State and local governments spent over $100 million in responding to wild fires. Approximately 500,000 acres of forest were completely destroyed in 1998. And in 1999, fires in Florida have again commenced a process with severe consequences. As of today, 2,542 fires have burned more than 58,000 acres; 18 divisional forestry firefighters have been injured; 59 structures have been destroyed, and another 81 were damaged by fire. Florida is not alone. Similar fires are occurring in Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and New Mexico. My heart goes out to the unfortunate victims of these fires, as well as to the firefighters and volunteers who are working bravely to save families, homes and communities. As we speak, Americans from Alabama, Delaware, and Georgia, are fighting side by side with Floridians to prevent these fires in my State from endangering more lives, homes, and property. National Guardsmen, meteorologists, insurance specialist, and volunteers have converged in Florida to assist in response and recovery. These individuals' bravery and willingness to support people who they never met reaffirms our belief in the selflessness and vitality of the human spirit. Mr. President, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. I would like to draw your attention to the front page of the St. Petersburg Times of Tuesday, April 20, which has this dramatic picture of the Everglades afire. The Everglades, home to many endangered species, and the water source for millions of Floridians, has for the last several days been besieged by fire. Now, fire is a natural phenomenon in the Everglades. It serves an important part in maintaining the ecosystem. However, human manipulation of this system has decreased water levels, making the Everglades more susceptible to fire and more ravaging consequences of that fire. This condition mirrors circumstances throughout Florida and many other States where efforts to prevent fires have allowed a large quantity of undergrowth to accumulate in our forestry lands. As many of you know, the long-leaf pine ecosystem, which is prevalent in Florida and other southeastern States, depends heavily on the role of natural fire to rejuvenate the ecosystem. Prescribed burning mimics naturally occurring lightening fires, clears excess underbrush, which can rob lower plants of sunlight. This frequent, low-intensity fire retains the rich flora of the healthy long-leaf pine ecosystem. Without these frequent fires, underbrush robs lower plants, which in drought condition creates a ready fuel source for a fire. It is this situation that has led to severe wildfires in Florida. Mr. President, today, I will be introducing legislation that is aimed at the prevention of the recurrence in the future and to assure that this tragedy does not bring a second tragedy--a permanent loss of our forest lands in Florida and in the southeast. I am introducing the Forestry Initiative to Restore the Environment Act of 1999 to mitigate the damages and prevent fire disasters in the future. What exactly does mitigation of losses mean for us today? Let me focus on my State of Florida. There are currently 16 million acres of forested lands, making up 47 percent of the State's total land area. The majority of this land--over 7 million acres--is owned by private farmers and individual corporate landowners. The State of Florida is continuing to grow at an explosive pace. It already has over 15 million people, and in 25 years it is projected to have over 20 million people. This rapid growth is creating pressure on land values throughout Florida and creating a circumstance in which there could be a massive conversion of this 7 million acres of privately owned timberland for development purposes. These 7 million acres not only provide a substantial amount of forest products for the Nation but also provide critical habitats for a unique group of plants and animals. These 7 million acres help to contain a human population explosion that would create additional demands on the already scarce water supply in Florida and lead to degradation of water quality. It is therefore in our Nation's interest to maintain Florida's existing timber lands for community use. This legislation provides a long-term plan to restore and protect private forestry lands damaged by wildfires and other natural disasters. It directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to act on its existing authority to develop a crop insurance program for small forestry landowners. This type of program--which allows producers to invest in their own future to protect themselves from natural disasters such as fires, hurricanes, or tornadoes--will provide the same protection for forestry producers as is provided through USDA insurance plans for crops such as wheat or corn. The availability of this support in times of disaster will provide incentives for private landowners to retain lands in forestry after disasters such as the current wildfires that we are experiencing in 1999. The second part of our legislation will help to reduce the severity of future fire disasters by increasing the incentives for prescribed burning. The State of Florida has an active prescribed burning program and burns an average of two million acres per year, including forestry, grasslands, and agricultural lands. However, as evidenced by this week's events, existing levels of prescribed burning are not enough. Large quantities of brush fuel accompanied by drought have created dangerous wildfire conditions. One solution is to increase the frequency of prescribed burning to reduce fuel levels and the severity of fires when they occur. In a study conducted by the Florida Division of Forestry, Orlando District, for the period 1981 to 1990, it was shown that an increase in prescribed burning leads to a decrease in the frequency of wildfires. The study compared two counties--Osceola County and Brevard County which differ in the amount of prescribed burning they conduct. Approximately five-hundred thousand acres are burned in Osceola County every 2 or 4 years. This compares with just over two-hundred and fifty thousand acres of lands in Brevard County on which prescribed burning is conducted. The study found that the number of wildfires, the acres burned, and the average wildfires per acre were lower in Osceola County than Brevard County. Our legislation attempts to encourage the use of prescribed burning as a forest management tool on private lands. First, it authorizes the U.S. Forest Service to provide both technical and financial assistance for prescribed burning to states. Grants to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of carrying out prescribed burns would be made to private landowners. Second, our legislation seeks to enhance public support for the use of prescribed fire by addressing one of the most challenging issues-- the misunderstanding of urban and suburban residents of the purpose of prescribed burning. In the urban interface zone where much of Florida's forested lands are located, the opposition of local residents to smoke plumes can stop any efforts to conduct prescribed burning. Our bill requires that the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency develop education and outreach programs on this topic and make them available to state environmental and forest management agencies. With these actions, this legislation will create a system to mitigate damages from wildfires. It will help to reduce the severity of future fires by removing obstacles for private landowners to conduct prescribed burns. I hope you will join me in our long-term efforts to create a system for mitigating damages from natural disasters and reducing the severity of future wildfires by encouraging prescribed burning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two items be printed in the Record. The first is an April 18 article from the Miami Herald describing some of the wildfire damage which occurred in that city last week. The second is an Associated Press story summarizing remarks made by the Secretary of the Interior supporting the use of prescribed burning at a wildlife conference in Gainesville, Florida this week.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have asked recognition this afternoon to commend the firefighters providing relief to the State of Florida and its citizens, which is once again besieged by fire due to excessive drought conditions. This, unfortunately, is not the first occasion on which I have risen to speak about forest fires in Florida. The natural conditions in the State have been altered to the point where fires, normally a natural and essential part of the pine forests of this region, have burned uncontrollably, causing damage to local communities, private homes, and to the Florida forestry industry. Last year, Florida sustained almost $300 million in private fire- related damage, and State and local governments spent over $100 million in responding to wild fires. Approximately 500,000 acres of forest were completely destroyed in 1998. And in 1999, fires in Florida have again commenced a process with severe consequences. As of today, 2,542 fires have burned more than 58,000 acres; 18 divisional forestry firefighters have been injured; 59 structures have been destroyed, and another 81 were damaged by fire. Florida is not alone. Similar fires are occurring in Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and New Mexico. My heart goes out to the unfortunate victims of these fires, as well as to the firefighters and volunteers who are working bravely to save families, homes and communities. As we speak, Americans from Alabama, Delaware, and Georgia, are fighting side by side with Floridians to prevent these fires in my State from endangering more lives, homes, and property. National Guardsmen, meteorologists, insurance specialist, and volunteers have converged in Florida to assist in response and recovery. These individuals' bravery and willingness to support people who they never met reaffirms our belief in the selflessness and vitality of the human spirit. Mr. President, they say that a picture speaks a thousand words. I would like to draw your attention to the front page of the St. Petersburg Times of Tuesday, April 20, which has this dramatic picture of the Everglades afire. The Everglades, home to many endangered species, and the water source for millions of Floridians, has for the last several days been besieged by fire. Now, fire is a natural phenomenon in the Everglades. It serves an important part in maintaining the ecosystem. However, human manipulation of this system has decreased water levels, making the Everglades more susceptible to fire and more ravaging consequences of that fire. This condition mirrors circumstances throughout Florida and many other States where efforts to prevent fires have allowed a large quantity of undergrowth to accumulate in our forestry lands. As many of you know, the long-leaf pine ecosystem, which is prevalent in Florida and other southeastern States, depends heavily on the role of natural fire to rejuvenate the ecosystem. Prescribed burning mimics naturally occurring lightening fires, clears excess underbrush, which can rob lower plants of sunlight. This frequent, low-intensity fire retains the rich flora of the healthy long-leaf pine ecosystem. Without these frequent fires, underbrush robs lower plants, which in drought condition creates a ready fuel source for a fire. It is this situation that has led to severe wildfires in Florida. Mr. President, today, I will be introducing legislation that is aimed at the prevention of the recurrence in the future and to assure that this tragedy does not bring a second tragedy--a permanent loss of our forest lands in Florida and in the southeast. I am introducing the Forestry Initiative to Restore the Environment Act of 1999 to mitigate the damages and prevent fire disasters in the future. What exactly does mitigation of losses mean for us today? Let me focus on my State of Florida. There are currently 16 million acres of forested lands, making up 47 percent of the State's total land area. The majority of this land--over 7 million acres--is owned by private farmers and individual corporate landowners. The State of Florida is continuing to grow at an explosive pace. It already has over 15 million people, and in 25 years it is projected to have over 20 million people. This rapid growth is creating pressure on land values throughout Florida and creating a circumstance in which there could be a massive conversion of this 7 million acres of privately owned timberland for development purposes. These 7 million acres not only provide a substantial amount of forest products for the Nation but also provide critical habitats for a unique group of plants and animals. These 7 million acres help to contain a human population explosion that would create additional demands on the already scarce water supply in Florida and lead to degradation of water quality. It is therefore in our Nation's interest to maintain Florida's existing timber lands for community use. This legislation provides a long-term plan to restore and protect private forestry lands damaged by wildfires and other natural disasters. It directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture to act on its existing authority to develop a crop insurance program for small forestry landowners. This type of program--which allows producers to invest in their own future to protect themselves from natural disasters such as fires, hurricanes, or tornadoes--will provide the same protection for forestry producers as is provided through USDA insurance plans for crops such as wheat or corn. The availability of this support in times of disaster will provide incentives for private landowners to retain lands in forestry after disasters such as the current wildfires that we are experiencing in 1999. The second part of our legislation will help to reduce the severity of future fire disasters by increasing the incentives for prescribed burning. The State of Florida has an active prescribed burning program and burns an average of two million acres per year, including forestry, grasslands, and agricultural lands. However, as evidenced by this week's events, existing levels of prescribed burning are not enough. Large quantities of brush fuel accompanied by drought have created dangerous wildfire conditions. One solution is to increase the frequency of prescribed burning to reduce fuel levels and the severity of fires when they occur. In a study conducted by the Florida Division of Forestry, Orlando District, for the period 1981 to 1990, it was shown that an increase in prescribed burning leads to a decrease in the frequency of wildfires. The study compared two counties--Osceola County and Brevard County which differ in the amount of prescribed burning they conduct. Approximately five-hundred thousand acres are burned in Osceola County every 2 or 4 years. This compares with just over two-hundred and fifty thousand acres of lands in Brevard County on which prescribed burning is conducted. The study found that the number of wildfires, the acres burned, and the average wildfires per acre were lower in Osceola County than Brevard County. Our legislation attempts to encourage the use of prescribed burning as a forest management tool on private lands. First, it authorizes the U.S. Forest Service to provide both technical and financial assistance for prescribed burning to states. Grants to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of carrying out prescribed burns would be made to private landowners. Second, our legislation seeks to enhance public support for the use of prescribed fire by addressing one of the most challenging issues-- the misunderstanding of urban and suburban residents of the purpose of prescribed burning. In the urban interface zone where much of Florida's forested lands are located, the opposition of local residents to smoke plumes can stop any efforts to conduct prescribed burning. Our bill requires that the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency develop education and outreach programs on this topic and make them available to state environmental and forest management agencies. With these actions, this legislation will create a system to mitigate damages from wildfires. It will help to reduce the severity of future fires by removing obstacles for private landowners to conduct prescribed burns. I hope you will join me in our long-term efforts to create a system for mitigating damages from natural disasters and reducing the severity of future wildfires by encouraging prescribed burning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two items be printed in the Record. The first is an April 18 article from the Miami Herald describing some of the wildfire damage which occurred in that city last week. The second is an Associated Press story summarizing remarks made by the Secretary of the Interior supporting the use of prescribed burning at a wildlife conference in Gainesville, Florida this week.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would require country of origin labeling of perishable agricultural commodities imported into the United States. I offer the ``Imported Produce Labeling Act'' to ensure that Americans know the origin of every orange, banana, tomato, cucumber, and green pepper on display in the grocery store. For two decades, Floridians shopping at their local grocery stores have been able to make educated choices about the food products they purchase for their families. In 1979, in my first year as Governor, I proudly signed legislation to make country of origin labels commonplace in produce sections all over Florida. This labeling requirement has proven to be neither complicated nor burdensome for Florida's farmers or retailers. Country of origin labeling is not new to the American marketplace. For decades, ``Made In'' labels have been as visible as price tags on clothes, toys, television sets, watches, and many other products. It makes little sense that such labels are nowhere to be found in the produce section of grocery stores in the vast majority of states. The current lack of identifying information on produce means that Americans who wish to heed government health warnings about foreign products or who have justifiable concerns about other nations' labor, environmental, and agricultural standards are powerless to choose other perishables. In fact, according to nationwide surveys, between 74 and 83 percent of consumers favor mandatory country of origin labeling for fresh produce. This is a low-cost, common sense method of informing consumers, as retailers will simply be asked to provide this information by means of a label, stamp, or placard. Implementation of this practice in Florida resulted in an estimated cost of only $10 monthly per grocery store, a remarkably small price to pay to provide American consumers with the information they need to make informed produce purchases. In addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that twenty-six of our key trading partners require country of origin labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables. By adopting this amendment, our law will become more consistent with the laws of our global trading partners. Consumers have the right to know basic information about the fruits and vegetables that they bring home to their families. Congress can take a major step toward achieving this simple goal by passing the ``Imported Produce Labeling Act,'' thereby restoring American shoppers' ability to make an informed decision.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bryan Giddings, Kelly Maher, Leesa Washington, Suzanne Matwyshen, and Jordan Coyle be granted floor privileges for the duration of my remarks.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would require country of origin labeling of perishable agricultural commodities imported into the United States. I offer the ``Imported Produce Labeling Act'' to ensure that Americans know the origin of every orange, banana, tomato, cucumber, and green pepper on display in the grocery store. For two decades, Floridians shopping at their local grocery stores have been able to make educated choices about the food products they purchase for their families. In 1979, in my first year as Governor, I proudly signed legislation to make country of origin labels commonplace in produce sections all over Florida. This labeling requirement has proven to be neither complicated nor burdensome for Florida's farmers or retailers. Country of origin labeling is not new to the American marketplace. For decades, ``Made In'' labels have been as visible as price tags on clothes, toys, television sets, watches, and many other products. It makes little sense that such labels are nowhere to be found in the produce section of grocery stores in the vast majority of states. The current lack of identifying information on produce means that Americans who wish to heed government health warnings about foreign products or who have justifiable concerns about other nations' labor, environmental, and agricultural standards are powerless to choose other perishables. In fact, according to nationwide surveys, between 74 and 83 percent of consumers favor mandatory country of origin labeling for fresh produce. This is a low-cost, common sense method of informing consumers, as retailers will simply be asked to provide this information by means of a label, stamp, or placard. Implementation of this practice in Florida resulted in an estimated cost of only $10 monthly per grocery store, a remarkably small price to pay to provide American consumers with the information they need to make informed produce purchases. In addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that twenty-six of our key trading partners require country of origin labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables. By adopting this amendment, our law will become more consistent with the laws of our global trading partners. Consumers have the right to know basic information about the fruits and vegetables that they bring home to their families. Congress can take a major step toward achieving this simple goal by passing the ``Imported Produce Labeling Act,'' thereby restoring American shoppers' ability to make an informed decision.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I prepared these remarks yesterday in anticipation that we would be debating the budget reform bill today. It is my understanding that subsequent to yesterday's offering of an amendment, which was referred to as the lockbox amendment, in lieu of the budget reform bill, that now the budget reform bill has been withdrawn. But anticipating that that is a relatively temporary step, because we cannot avoid having to deal with the issues of budget reform if we are serious about our goal of preserving the momentum that is currently underway towards a surplus in the Federal Government fiscal accounts, I offer some comments today which I hope will be useful as we prepare for that return to the budget reform discussion. I am very pleased that we are focusing on this issue, because it is an indication of our commitment to retain the fiscal discipline that has gotten us to the point where we have the opportunity to talk about a Federal budget surplus and how it should be appropriately used. I want to discuss two interrelated issues. One I will call the issue of the ``vault'': How will we protect the surplus that we have once it has been attained? But the even more significant predicate issue is, How do we achieve the surplus? I am concerned by some of the actions that were taken in 1998 which indicate a lack of resolve to protect the surplus. It is no good to have the securest vault in the bank possible if we fritter away the money we would like to place in that vault. If we do not address the underlying issues of fiscal discipline, responsibility, the Social Security trust fund will be endangered no matter how strong our lockbox is to protect it. This Congress is in a unique position to reaffirm the stated commitment to fiscal discipline and to cure the previous willingness of Congresses to undermine that discipline through budget trickery. As recently as 1993, the Federal budget deficit was at a record high of $290 billion. Last year, we learned that 5 years of effort, fiscal austerity, and a strong economy had transformed that staggering deficit into the first budget surplus in more than a generation. While we celebrated that success--it was a cause for celebration--it did not give Congress carte blanche authority to return to its spendthrift ways of the past. Especially daunting was the reality that 100 percent of the surplus was the result of surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. We have a responsibility to our current generation, as well as to their children and grandchildren, to save that extra money until Social Security's long-term solvency is assured. Unfortunately, the 105th Congress stumbled in its commitment to that goal. Though it resisted a proposal to spend surplus funds on a catch-all omnibus list of tax cuts, and it similarly rejected suggestions that the surplus could be used for increased spending, it did not exercise similar good judgment during the end-of-the-year rush to adjourn. The same Congress that claimed to be saving the surplus for Social Security participated in raids on that same surplus through the back door. In the waning hours of last year's budget negotiations, we passed a $532 billion omnibus appropriations bill. Inserted in that $532 billion spending bill was $21.4 billion of so-called emergency spending. As we know, the fact that that $21.4 billion was designated as an emergency meant that it did not have to be offset by spending reductions elsewhere in the budget or by additional revenue. Rather, it was funded by reducing the surplus, that 100-percent Social Security- derived surplus. Let me illustrate with these charts what has been happening. In 1998, the stated Social Security surplus, that is the amount of revenue into the Social Security trust fund in excess of the checks that were written to the beneficiaries of Social Security, was $99 billion. But before that $99 billion could be realized, there was a predicate called for in it, and that was for $27 billion in order to offset the deficit that the Federal Government was running in its non- Social Security accounts. And then we added to that $27 billion an additional $3 billion in the fiscal year 1998 expenditures through that emergency appropriation that did not have to be offset by reductions in spending or additional revenue but came directly out of the surplus fund. So instead of having a surplus of $99 billion, we ended up with a surplus of $69 billion. What is the projection for fiscal year 1999? This year, the Social Security surplus has grown to $127 billion, but, again, the first call is going to be to offset the deficit which will be projected for the non-Social Security portion of the budget, which is $3 billion, the next $13 billion, which is this year's component of last year's emergency spending bill, and in addition to that, we are now discussing the possibility of additional funding for the Kosovo emergency of $6 billion. That is the most modest number which has been suggested thus far. Others are suggesting that number might be doubled or tripled in terms of its cost. Instead of a Social Security surplus of $127 billion, we are now at $105 billion in Social Security surplus, with that number itself being subject to further dilution if there are additional emergency outlays allocated. For fiscal year 2000, we are looking at a Social Security surplus of $138 billion, minus $5 billion to pay for deficits other than Social Security in the Federal budget, $5 billion, which is the final installment on that 1998 emergency appropriation bill, and, again, the possibility of additional emergency spending for Kosovo or other purposes. Mr. President, it is critical that we exercise constraint in terms of how we use the emergency spending power available to Congress, or we will substantially dilute the funds that are going to be locked up in this lockbox vault protected for Social Security beneficiaries. I think there are several steps we need to take. The first is that Congress needs to commit itself to reexamining that $21.4 billion we spent last year and determine what portions of that $21.4 billion did not meet the standards for an emergency appropriation. With that commitment, we should restore those funds to the Social Security surplus during this year's budget consideration. I am pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to our budget resolution which committed us to that objective. That should be a commitment in which we should be joined by the House and the President. Over the long haul, it is critical that we institute some additional spending procedures which will allow us to respond to true emergencies without, as we did in 1998, opening the door to misuse. Senator Snowe of Maine, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and I have introduced legislation to permanently close these loopholes in our current budget procedure. These procedures would basically provide for a 60-vote supermajority of the Senate to be required in the event there was a challenge that items which were listed as emergencies in an emergency spending bill were not true emergencies and did not meet the statutory definition; also, a 60-vote supermajority for the passage of any bill which contained emergency spending so we could not have a repetition of what happened last year in that emergency spending was inserted into a large omnibus spending bill and, therefore, not effectively subject to removal. Those are some of the procedural steps that should be taken in order to assure we do not have a continued repetition of a dilution of the Social Security surplus before it has a chance to get into the lockbox. Now let me make a few points about the lockbox itself, the vault into which we intend to place these surpluses that, hopefully, we have protected with greater vigilance than we did in the fall of 1998. I strongly support developing measures which will create a financially solvent Social Security system for current and future beneficiaries. This is not only a fiscal goal, but it is a moral responsibility, a moral responsibility to carry out the contract that exists between the American people and the American Government for their financial security in retirement. I am pleased the Senate is debating this issue, since the trustees of the Social Security system are predicting that in the year 2034 the current Social Security system will not be solvent. It is critical that we take steps now to protect long-term solvency. However, the proposed lockbox, which was a part of the budget reform legislation, in my opinion, is not sufficient to accomplish this objective. What are its deficiencies? First, it allows the Social Security surplus, in addition to paying down the national debt, to be used for unspecified ``Social Security reform.'' Now, Social Security reform can mean different things, but not all of those things are related to achieving solvency in the Social Security system. Would Social Security reform include increasing the benefits which would make the program potentially even more subject to insolvency at an earlier date? Would it mean reducing revenue into the system, including such proposals as returning to a pay-as-you-go system or diverting a portion of the current revenue out of the Social Security system into some individual retirement accounts? All of those ideas may or may not have merit, but they should not be accomplished at the expense of our commitment to solvency in the current Social Security system. I propose to offer an amendment at such time as it is appropriate that would have the Social Security surplus used solely to pay off national debt, specifically that component of the debt which is held by the public. Only this action will ensure the Social Security surplus is used for its intended purpose of meeting our obligations to the American people and, in so doing, contribute to a stronger American economy, which is the fundamental basis upon which the Federal Government will be able to meet its future obligations to Social Security beneficiaries. There will be a cascading series of positive effects on the economy if we commit the Social Security surplus to paying down the national debt. Paying down the debt will lower long-term interest rates. These lower rates will make it less expensive for Americans to borrow money, and this lower cost of borrowing will encourage business ventures to expand, to increase their productivity, to increase their hiring. It will encourage increased investment in long-term fundamental areas such as education. The new economic activity and increased labor productivity will lead to increased economic growth. This growth will lead to the strengthened capacity of the National Government to meet its Social Security obligations. These points were best expressed by the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Alan Greenspan, when he said, . . . in light of these inexorable demographic trends, I have always emphasized that we should be aiming budgetary surpluses and using the proceeds to retire outstanding Federal debt. This would put further downward pressure on long-term interest rates, which would enhance private capital investment, labor productivity, and economic growth. If I were allowed, I would also have offered a second amendment that would not tie the Government's ability to borrow debt from the public to a 10-year budget projection. In the legislation that was before us, there was a proposal to use future estimates of our national debt as the benchmark for determining whether we had protected the Social Security surplus. I think there is merit in that approach, but I believe this legislation had carried that merit beyond its reasonable limits. I would provide, through the amendment I had intended to offer, for a more reasonable and credible debt ceiling target. It also would have provided enhanced flexibility to accommodate unanticipated events, both domestic and foreign. I would suggest that it is an impossible task for any person to estimate the budget and to estimate the national debt on a 10-year basis. I would offer as my basis for that statement a look-back just 5 years, not 10 years, which this legislation proposed. In January of 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the national debt would be 5 years hence, in the fiscal year 1998, which ended September 30, 1998. Their projection was that the national debt on that date would be $4.863 trillion. At the same time, in January of 1993, the administration made an estimate of what they thought the national debt would be 5 years hence. Their projection was $4.576 trillion. The actual number was $3.720 trillion. So the CBO was off by over a trillion dollars. The administration was off by $856 billion. That was a 5-year projection. What we are proposing in this legislation is to use 10-year projections and to give those the sanctity of almost biblical correctness, because they would become the basis upon which our future budgets would be predicated. Mr. President, seeing my time is about to expire, I offer these amendments as an indication of the direction which I think we should be proceeding in as we strive together to achieve a very important goal, which is to protect the Social Security surplus for its intended purpose of meeting the obligations that we have for this and future generations of Americans. I believe the amendments I will offer will help both assure that the money is protected before it goes into the vault, and that the vault itself is a reasonable and secure place in which we can place those funds. Protecting Social Security for our children and grandchildren is one of the highest goals of the Federal Government. We can make the lockbox stronger, and we can and should control emergency spending so there will be money to put in the lockbox for future generations. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.