Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Angela Ewell-Madison, Mr. Sean McCluskie, and Mr. Jordan Coyle of my staff be afforded privileges of the floor during the duration of my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Specter, Cochran and Robb, to introduce the Access to Women's Health Care Act of 1999. This important legislation would provide women with direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological services. It is critical that women have direct access to health care providers who are trained to address their unique health care needs. Women's health has historically received little attention and it is time that we correct that. An obstetrician/gynecologist provides health care that encompasses the woman as a whole patient, while focusing on their reproductive systems. Access to obstetrician/gynecologists would improve the health of women by providing routine and preventive health care throughout the woman's lifetime. In fact, 60 percent of all visits to obstetrician/gynecologists are for preventive care. According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, preventive care is better when women have access to obstetrician/gynecologists. The specialty of obstetrics/gynecology is devoted to the health care of women. Primary and preventive care are integral services provided by obstetrician/gynecologists. Complete physical exams, family planning, hypertension and cardiovascular surveillance, osteoporosis and smoking cessation counseling, are all among the services provided by obstetrician/gynecologists. For many women, an obstetrician/ gynecologist is often the only physician they see regularly during their reproductive years. Congress, so far, has been more reluctant to ensure direct access to women's health care providers than states. Thirty-seven states have stepped up to the plate and required at least some direct access for women's health care. We should commend these states for their efforts and work together so that women across the nation are afforded this important right. I hope that with the help of my colleagues in Congress we will be able to improve women's health, by increasing their access to providers of obstetric/gynecological care. This provision has been included in varying forms in many of the managed care reform proposals this Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Specter, Cochran and Robb, to introduce the Access to Women's Health Care Act of 1999. This important legislation would provide women with direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological services. It is critical that women have direct access to health care providers who are trained to address their unique health care needs. Women's health has historically received little attention and it is time that we correct that. An obstetrician/gynecologist provides health care that encompasses the woman as a whole patient, while focusing on their reproductive systems. Access to obstetrician/gynecologists would improve the health of women by providing routine and preventive health care throughout the woman's lifetime. In fact, 60 percent of all visits to obstetrician/gynecologists are for preventive care. According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, preventive care is better when women have access to obstetrician/gynecologists. The specialty of obstetrics/gynecology is devoted to the health care of women. Primary and preventive care are integral services provided by obstetrician/gynecologists. Complete physical exams, family planning, hypertension and cardiovascular surveillance, osteoporosis and smoking cessation counseling, are all among the services provided by obstetrician/gynecologists. For many women, an obstetrician/ gynecologist is often the only physician they see regularly during their reproductive years. Congress, so far, has been more reluctant to ensure direct access to women's health care providers than states. Thirty-seven states have stepped up to the plate and required at least some direct access for women's health care. We should commend these states for their efforts and work together so that women across the nation are afforded this important right. I hope that with the help of my colleagues in Congress we will be able to improve women's health, by increasing their access to providers of obstetric/gynecological care. This provision has been included in varying forms in many of the managed care reform proposals this Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to offer a tribute to an outstanding Floridian and a premier musician, Ms. Kathryn Holm, of The Florida Orchestra, will be recognized this evening at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as ``Arts Administrator of the Year.'' As we prepare to begin a new millennium, we must remember that a key indicator of the health and well-being of any society has always been its treatment of the arts. Our society is one which admires its artists, and Ms. Holm has spent her career providing a basis for our reverence of music, working with The Florida Orchestra to transform sounds into majestic expressions. Kathryn Holm joined The Florida Orchestra as a principal harpist in 1977. Some 17 years later, she was named executive of the orchestra, which was, at the time, heavily in debt. Combining her musical talent with her business acumen, she was able to restore fiscal solvency to The Florida Orchestra. Her effective three-stage recovery plan earned Kathryn Holm the ``Jessie Ball DuPont Turnaround Award,'' while restoring credibility to the orchestra. Now in its fourth consecutive year without operating losses, The Florida Orchestra has boosted ticket sales, sponsorships and donations, and released its first compact disc. Mr. President, I am honored to join the art world in applauding the leadership of Kathryn Holm on this special day.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Member of the Senate, I am today introducing the National Park Preservation Act with my colleague Senator Reid of Nevada. This legislation will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitats, and cultural and other core park resources within our National Park System. As you are all aware, the National Park Service has a presence in virtually every state in the nation. There are a total of 345 units in the national park system spread throughout the nation. My home state of Florida is home to three National Parks--Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas; two National Preserves--Big Cypress and Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve; two National Seashores--Canaveral and Gulf Islands; two National Monuments--Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas; and two National Memorials--DeSoto and Fort Caroline. Although these National Parks are treasured throughout the nation, everyday activities often threaten the resources of our park system. For example, in Yellowstone National Park an inadequate sewage system frequently discharges materials into precious resources such as Yellowstone Lake. Development surrounding Mojave National Park threatens the park's desert wilderness. Ground-level ozone accumulating at Great Smoky Mountains National Park threatens the park's core resource--visibility. Manipulation of the natural hydrologic system impacts water quality and water availability in Everglades National Park. The Graham-Reid National Park Preservation Act will preserve and protect threatened or impaired ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. The bill will establish a permanent account using Outer Continental Shelf revenues to provide $500 million annually to the Department of Interior to protect and preserve these resources. These funds will be made available for projects such as land acquisition, construction, grants to state or local governments, or partnerships with other federal agencies that seek to combat identified threats to ecosystems, critical habitats, cultural resources, and other core park resources. In this legislation, I also continue my longstanding efforts to protect Florida's coastal resources by making revenues from any new oil and gas leases or from development of any existing leases in a moratorium area ineligible for expenditure in this account. Thirty percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring within the unit such as sewage treatment at Yellowstone Park. Seventy percent of the $500 million will be available for park units threatened or impaired by activities occurring outside of the unit, such as degradation of water resources at Everglades National Park. Of these funds, the legislation specifically provides $75 million to the Everglades restoration effort as the keynote project of the legislation. The Everglades National Park is one component of the Everglades ecosystem which stretches from the Kissimmee River basin near Orlando and all the way to Florida Bay and Keys. It is the only ecosystem of its kind in the world. It is the largest wetland and subtropical wilderness in the United States. It is home to a unique population of plant and wildlife. The water in this system is the lifeblood of the freshwater aquifer that provides most of Florida's drinking water. For more than a century, this ecosystem has been altered to facilitate development and protect against hurricanes and droughts. Today, almost 50% of the original Everglades has been drained or otherwise altered. The remaining Everglades, and in particular, the regions located within Everglades National Park, are severely threatened by nutrient-rich water, interrupted hydrology, decreased water supply, exotic plants, and mercury contamination. On July 1 the Army Corps of Engineers will submit to Congress an Everglades restoration plan, termed the ``Restudy'' by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This plan reviews the original Central and South Florida Flood Control project which was initiated in the 1940s by the Army Corps and has been the source of the ecosystem manipulation that occurred in Florida since that time. The Restudy outlines the basic elements of a plan to restore the Everglades as closely to their natural state as possible. This is a difficult and complex task since the original area of the Everglades was reduced by 50% with the development of both coasts as large metropolitan areas. Costs of execution of this plan will be shared on a 50-50 basis with the state of Florida. There has never been a restoration project of this size in the history of the United States or the world. This is an opportunity to preserve a national treasure that was destroyed by our own actions in the past. The bill we will introduce today will provide dedicated funds for the federal share of the land acquisition portions of this project which is so critical to the nation. I look forward to working with each of you as we seek to protect and preserve the ecosystems, critical habitat, cultural resources and other core resources within our National Park System. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Moynihan, Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein, Wellstone, and Leahy to introduce the Fairness to Legal Immigrants Act of 1999. I commend my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are also introducing this legislation today, for their efforts to restore benefits to legal immigrants. This legislation includes several provisions which restore important health, disability and nutrition benefits to additional categories of legal immigrants. These benefits would improve the lives of many of our most vulnerable, such as pregnant women and children, the elderly and the disabled. One of the provisions in this proposal would grant states the option to provide health care coverage to legal immigrant children through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--in essence eliminating the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996, as the cutoff date for benefits eligibility to children. The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 prohibits states from covering these immigrant children during their first five years in the United States. This has serious consequences. Children without health insurance do not get important care for preventable diseases. Many uninsured children are hospitalized for acute asthma attacks that could have been prevented, or suffer from permanent hearing loss from untreated ear infections. Without adequate health care, common illnesses can turn into life-long crippling diseases, whereas appropriate treatment and care can help children with diseases like diabetes live relatively normal lives. A lack of adequate medical care will also hinder the social and educational development of children, as children who are sick and left untreated are less ready to learn. In addition to allowing extended coverage of legal immigrant children, this initiative aims to provide Medicaid to pregnant women and disabled immigrants regardless of whether they participate in Social Security's Supplemental Security Income program. States would also become eligible for reimbursement of costs associated with providing institutional care for some elderly and disabled immigrants. Another important issue addressed by this legislation is the exemption allowing legal immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse to receive assistance. At present, victims of domestic violence are restricted from receiving benefits during their first five years in the United States. These individuals are most vulnerable and should not be subjected to staying in a bad situation due to lack of resources. In this legislation we attempt to diminish the arbitrary cutoff date used in the 1996 welfare law to determine the eligibility of legal immigrants to benefits they desperately need. Our nation was built by people who came to our shores seeking opportunity and a better life, and America has greatly benefitted from the talent, resourcefulness, determination, and work ethic of many generations of legal immigrants. Time and time again, they have restored our faith in the American Dream. We should not discriminate between these important members of our community based on nothing more than an arbitrary date. I hope that with the help of my colleagues in Congress we will be able to rectify the discrimination suffered by individuals who have legally entered our country, who pay taxes, who serve in the military, and who add to the fabric of this nation. As our nation enters what promises to be a dynamic century, the United States needs a prudent, fair immigration policy to ensure that avenues of refuge and opportunity remain open for those seeking freedom, justice, and a better life.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Moynihan, Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein, Wellstone, and Leahy to introduce the Fairness to Legal Immigrants Act of 1999. I commend my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are also introducing this legislation today, for their efforts to restore benefits to legal immigrants. This legislation includes several provisions which restore important health, disability and nutrition benefits to additional categories of legal immigrants. These benefits would improve the lives of many of our most vulnerable, such as pregnant women and children, the elderly and the disabled. One of the provisions in this proposal would grant states the option to provide health care coverage to legal immigrant children through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--in essence eliminating the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996, as the cutoff date for benefits eligibility to children. The welfare reform legislation passed in 1996 prohibits states from covering these immigrant children during their first five years in the United States. This has serious consequences. Children without health insurance do not get important care for preventable diseases. Many uninsured children are hospitalized for acute asthma attacks that could have been prevented, or suffer from permanent hearing loss from untreated ear infections. Without adequate health care, common illnesses can turn into life-long crippling diseases, whereas appropriate treatment and care can help children with diseases like diabetes live relatively normal lives. A lack of adequate medical care will also hinder the social and educational development of children, as children who are sick and left untreated are less ready to learn. In addition to allowing extended coverage of legal immigrant children, this initiative aims to provide Medicaid to pregnant women and disabled immigrants regardless of whether they participate in Social Security's Supplemental Security Income program. States would also become eligible for reimbursement of costs associated with providing institutional care for some elderly and disabled immigrants. Another important issue addressed by this legislation is the exemption allowing legal immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse to receive assistance. At present, victims of domestic violence are restricted from receiving benefits during their first five years in the United States. These individuals are most vulnerable and should not be subjected to staying in a bad situation due to lack of resources. In this legislation we attempt to diminish the arbitrary cutoff date used in the 1996 welfare law to determine the eligibility of legal immigrants to benefits they desperately need. Our nation was built by people who came to our shores seeking opportunity and a better life, and America has greatly benefitted from the talent, resourcefulness, determination, and work ethic of many generations of legal immigrants. Time and time again, they have restored our faith in the American Dream. We should not discriminate between these important members of our community based on nothing more than an arbitrary date. I hope that with the help of my colleagues in Congress we will be able to rectify the discrimination suffered by individuals who have legally entered our country, who pay taxes, who serve in the military, and who add to the fabric of this nation. As our nation enters what promises to be a dynamic century, the United States needs a prudent, fair immigration policy to ensure that avenues of refuge and opportunity remain open for those seeking freedom, justice, and a better life.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I, too, appreciate the vote of the Senator from Connecticut in favor of this, I think, quite moderate but extremely important and timely resolution. Today in Geneva the United Nations Human Rights Commission commenced its annual meetings. One of the issues that will be before the Commission will be whether a resolution condemning human rights in Cuba and appointing a special rapporteur to review those conditions should pass. Unfortunately, last year a similar resolution for the first time in many years failed to pass. The question is, How has Cuba reacted to the fact that for 12 months it has not had the international condemnation of its human rights record, which has been the case for many of the years of the Castro regime? What in fact has happened is that we have seen a significant, almost inexplicable increase in the denial of fundamental rights, political rights, human rights, civil rights, to the people of Cuba and, as my colleague has just indicated, the examples of the loss of fundamental human dignity. Why are we passing this resolution? We are passing this resolution not only to express our outrage at this condition but also to urge the international community to join us, the international community which has so recently been populated by new democracies, for those new democracies to step forward and express their condemnation for one of the few remaining dictatorial regimes in the world. This recent crackdown by the Cuban Government has already drawn the condemnation of the international community, including some of Cuba's staunchest friends, such as Canada. A resolution is now being circulated in Geneva by several Eastern European states condemning the Cuban Government for its human rights record and calling for the appointment of a special rapporteur. Mr. President, I think it is significant that these Eastern European states, which suffered under the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, are leading the effort to highlight the repression and terror that accompanies everyday life in Cuba. This resolution calls on the U.S. Government to take all measures to support this resolution so that the international community, including the international community with the United States of America, can shine the light of freedom on Castro's brutal repressive regime. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this resolution.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the threat to the surplus is not the threat that it will or will not be placed in a lockbox. It is a threat whether the surplus will be dissipated by expenditures that are not offset by either other spending or by sources of revenue to support those additional expenditures. I believe if you are seriously committed to preserving the surplus so it can be used to strengthen our Social Security system, you should give strong support to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Comprehensive Border Protection Act of 1999 which Senator Grassley and I introduced on March 23, 1999. This bill enhances our efforts to secure our borders by providing the U.S. Customs Service with the necessary funding it requires to perform the multi faceted functions of drug interdiction, trade facilitation, and international passenger and cargo inspection services. The bill also addresses the concerns that I, as well as many of my colleagues, have regarding the U.S. Customs Service and its ability to efficiently and effectively: Determine enforcement and trade facilitation goals, objectives, and priorities; allocate assets and resources in response to changing threats and needs; address employee misconduct and integrity concerns; and ensure full participation in a comprehensive strategy to combat international drug trafficking and money laundering. Combating international drug trafficking is critical to our national security. While we have experienced some success in our counter drug operations along the Southwest border, there are undeniable signs that drug traffickers are adapting to our law enforcement efforts. During the 1980s, as our law enforcement presence increased along the Florida coast, drug traffickers responded by relocating their operations to the Southwest border. Reacting to this change, we abandoned Customs marine operations in Florida and intensified our efforts along the United States-Mexico border. Now, drug traffickers have renewed the use of established smuggling routes in the Caribbean and off the coast of Florida to surreptitiously import their destructive cargo into the United States. During fiscal year 1998, Customs cocaine seizures in my home State of Florida totaled 69,479 pounds, a 23 percent increase over 1997 seizures. Drug related deaths in Florida also increased as more and more of our young adults experimented with heroin--the most pure heroin we have ever encountered; heroin so pure it can be smoked, rather than injected into a vein with a syringe. An effective U.S. drug enforcement strategy must be proactive, including an intensified interdiction effort that exploits the inherent vulnerabilities of transporting drugs into the United States by air, land and sea. As one of our primary interdiction agencies, Customs must have the necessary assets and resources to meet its interdiction responsibilities. Interdiction, however, is but one part of a successful drug enforcement strategy. Our strategy must also emphasize fundamental investigative work required to identify, infiltrate, disrupt and dismantle drug smuggling and money laundering organizations. To perform its investigative responsibilities, Customs must have the appropriate funding to sustain an experienced work force of inspectors and agents dedicated to drug enforcement operations. These inspectors and agents must be assigned to the most vulnerable and critical locations where illegal shipments of drugs enter the United States--our border with Mexico, as well as Florida and the Gulf Coast. Our counter drug strategy must also recognize the importance of, and be sensitive to, the needs of the international trade community. Enhancing and facilitating open trade is essential to our economic health. To sustain U.S. economic growth, we must maintain the free flow of trade across our borders, while remaining vigilant to ensure that our open borders are not exploited by those who would use legitimate commerce to conceal their illegal activities. Over the past few years, U.S. seaports and airports have benefitted from the increasing growth of international commerce. During 1998, international traffic at Florida ports increased approximately 17.9 percent. In response to the increase in international passenger and cargo arrivals, a number of new cruise ship terminals, container freight stations and passenger inspection facilities have been constructed and expanded. Additionally, operations in free trade zones and bonded warehouses have increased. However, in the face of this growth, I am concerned that Customs have been unable to adequately respond through the reallocation of personnel and funding. We must ensure that Customs, in response to growth and change in international commerce, is prepared to review its resource allocation process on a regular basis. Customs must be able to shift both personnel and funding as threat and need dictate. States, such as Florida, that depend on the presence of Customs personnel to facilitate international trade, must be assured that sufficient Customs assets are in place to inspect and process both international passengers and cargo as they arrive in our seaports and airports. The Comprehensive Border Protection Act of 1999 establishes a more accountable Customs Service by requiring Customs to report to this body, no later than 120 days after this legislation is enacted, on the methods utilized to identify enforcement priorities and trade facilitation objectives. This legislation requires that Customs establish performance standards and objectives against which we may evaluate the progress toward the goals identified in the customs annual plan. This legislaiton is a significant step toward giving customs the ability and authority to reallocate resources in order to meet enforcement demands and commercial operations needs. The bill also directs Customs to develop and implement an accountability model to address violations of administrative policies and procedures, as well as allegations of corruption. The purpose of this provision is to ensure employee misconduct at the Customs Service is addressed in an efficient, effective and equitable manner. It is essential to the credibility of the agency that Customs address allegations of employee misconduct without unnecessary delay.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Grassley, Baucus, Hatch, Breaux, Jeffords, Kerrey, Mack, Robb, Murkowski, Chafee, Thompson, Bond, and Bingaman to introduce the Pension Coverage and Portability Act. I am honored to be here today, in a bipartisan group, and especially with my colleague Senator Charles Grassley, who has put a tremendous effort into crafting many parts of this bill. He and I recognize that for our nation to solve what will be one of this generation's greatest challenges, building retirement security for today's workers, we need to move in a common sense, bipartisan fashion. Many of the original cosponsors of this bill were key in crafting sections of this legislation over the last three years. Senator Grassley's efforts here have expanded fairness for women and families, and focuses on the benefits of retirement education. Senator Baucus has brought the ideas that expand pension coverage and ease the administrative burdens on America's small businesses. Portability, so important as we become a more mobile society, received the attention of Senator Jeffords. All businesses will have the hard work of Senator Hatch to thank for many of the regulatory relief, and administrative simplification elements of this bill. Senator Breaux focused on the ``big picture'' of retirement security by authoring the ESOP provisions. And finally, Senators Kerrey and Robb provided valuable new input that helped shape his legislation. Throughout the process of putting this bill together, our main task has been to listen. We have listened at town hall meetings, at the Retirement Security Summit I held last year in Tampa, and a Women's Summit I held in Orlando last April. I am also planning another Retirement Security Summit in Jacksonville this May to continue the dialogue on this important issue. The ideas have come from pension actuaries, tax attorneys, Cabinet leaders, and some of the best ideas, from everyday people. With reason, some of the public debate recently has focused on President Clinton's mantra ``Save Social Security First.'' And we all agree, on both sides of the aisle, that we need to ensure that social security is as viable for my nine grandchildren as it was for may parents and will be for me. However, social security is only one part of the picture. Pensions and personal savings will make up an ever increasing part of retirement security. So when Congress takes action to ensure the future of social security, we are only addressing one-third of the problem. Social Security may play less of a role for each generation. We must develop personal savings, and we must have years of work pay off in workers vesting in pensions. Our bill will help hard working Americans build personal retirement savings through their employers, through 401(k)s, through payroll deduction IRAs, and through higher limits on savings. Employers and workers both win. Employers get simpler pension systems with less administrative burden, and more loyal employees. And workers build secure retirement and watch savings accumulate over years of work. We need to be able to offer business owners and their workers: uncumbersome portability, administrative simplicity, and the confidence that their plans are secure and well funded. To achieve this goal, we focused on six areas: simplification, portability, expanded coverage for small business, pension security and enforcement, women's equity issues, and expanding retirement planning and education opportunities. The largest section of this legislation deals with expanded coverage for small business. It's the largest section because small businesses have the greatest difficulty achieving retirement security. 51 million American workers have no retirement plan, 21 million of these employees work in small businesses. The problem: statistics indicate that only a small percentage of workers in firms of less than 100 employees have access to a retirement plan. We take a step forward in eliminating one of the first hurdles that a small business faces when it establishes a pension plan. On one hand, the federal government is encouraging these businesses to start pension plans, and then we turn around and charge the small business, at times, up to one thousand dollars to register their plan with the Internal Revenue Service. The solution: eliminate this fee for small businesses. We need to encourage small businesses to start plans, not discourage them with high registration fees. Another problem for small businesses and others is people postponing retirement decisions until a later date. Many young people in their 20's and 30's don't think they need to worry about retirement security ``right now,'' it's a decision that can wait for later. Our solution to this is to encourage businesses to have ``opt out'' plans for retirement savings. Instead of the worker having to actively decide to participate and fill out paperwork, he or she is automatically participating unless they actively decide not to. Another problem this legislation addresses: retirement security for women and families. Historically speaking, women live longer than men, therefore, need greater savings for retirement. Yet our pension and retirement laws do not reflect this. Women are more mobile than men, moving in and out of the workforce due to family responsibilities, thus they have less of a chance to vest. Fewer than 32% of all women retirees receive a pension. Currently two-thirds of working women are employed in sectors of the economy that are unlikely to have a retirement plan: service and retail, and small business. In an effort to address one of the problems--preparing for a longer life expectancy, we realistically adjust upwards the age in which you must start withdrawing funds. Under current law, you must start withdrawing money from retirement plans at age seventy-and-a-half. However, a woman at age seventy can still have three decades in retirement. I know, because I represent many of them in Florida. At the Retirement Summit I hosted in Tampa, Florida, several retirees mentioned that they wanted to keep this money in retirement savings for as long as possible. We raise the seventy- and-a-half age to seventy-five for mandatory minimum distributions. Second, we say that $100,000 of any IRA will be exempt from minimum distribution rules. This accomplishes two important goals: simplifying the bureaucracy for thousands of Americans who have less than this balance, and protecting a vital nest egg for the last years of retirement so that long term care and other expenses can be covered. Another problem addressed in this section of the legislation is the mobility of our workforce. On average, Americans will have 7 different employers during their career which means they are often not at any job long enough to vest into retirement benefits. Our legislation offers a solution--shrinking the 5 year vesting cycle to a three year cycle. We believe this is more reflective of job tenure in the 1990's and on into the next century. As I mentioned earlier, the current U.S. worker will have seven different employers. We have the possibility of a generation of American workers who will retire with many small accounts--creating a complex maze of statements and features, different for each account. This is a problem--pensions should be portable from job to job. One solution to this problem--allow employees to roll one retirement account into another as they move from job to job so that when they retire, they will have one retirement account. It's easier to monitor, less complicated to keep track of, and builds a more secure retirement for the worker. Portability is important, but we must also reduce the red tape. The main obstacle that companies face in establishing retirement programs is bureaucratic administrative burden. For example: for small plans, it costs $228 per person per year just to comply with all the forms, tests and regulations. We have a common sense remedy to one of the most vexing problems in pension administration: figuring out how much money to contribute to the company's plan. It's a complex formula of facts, statistics and assumptions. We want to be able to say to plans that have no problem with underfunding: to help make these calculations, you can use the prior year's data to help make the proper contribution. You don't have to re-sort through the numbers each and every year. If your plan is sound, use reliable data from the previous year, and then verify when all the final details are available. Companies will be able to calculate, and then budget accordingly--and not wait until figures and rates out of their control are released by outside sources. I have said time and time again today that Americans are not saving, but those who are oftentimes hit limits on the amounts they can save. The problem is that most of these limits were established more than 20 years ago. Currently, for example, in a 401(k) plan the IRS limits the amount an employee can contribute to $10,000 a year. Our solution is to raise that limit to $12,000, along with raising many other limits that affect savings in order to build a more secure retirement for working Americans. The building of retirement security will also take some education. One of the major reasons Americans do not prepare for retirement is that they don't understand what benefits are available and what benefits they are acquiring. Our solution to this dilemma is regular and easy to read benefit statements from employers reminding workers early in their career of the importance of retirement savings. These statements would clarify what benefits workers are accruing. And from this information each American will more easily be able to determine the personal savings they need in order to build a sound retirement. With the introduction of this legislation today it is my goal to ensure that each American who works hard for thirty or forty years has gotten every opportunity for a secure and comfortable retirement. I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard with me on this measure, and ask for the support of those in this Chamber on this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, several months ago, workers preparing land for development at the mouth of the Miami River began to notice a mysterious circular formation in the limestone bedrock that forms the foundation of the City of Miami. Further examination revealed that this site, where the river meets the bay, was utilized by the prehistoric Tequesta civilization for over 2,000 years, perhaps serving as an astronomical tool or as a cultural center for their complex maritime society. Floridians marveled at this clue to our past, and Miami is rediscovering and rejoicing in the Ancient Tequesta culture which, so many centuries before us, survived and flourished in an environment once dominated by sawgrass and gators, not condos and cruise ships. I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to save and study reminders of our heritage. So in order to save this particular landmark, I urge you to join me in asking the National Park Service to examine the feasibility of including the Miami Circle as a component of Biscayne National Park. This is an appropriate way of fulfilling our responsibility to preserve this historically significant Tequesta site. Since 1980, Biscayne National Park has stretched from Biscayne Bay near Miami to the northernmost Florida Keys, covering 180,000 acres, 95 percent of which is water. The Park is already home to over one hundred known archaeological sites, the majority of which are submerged, as well as ten historic structures. Among those archaeological sites are several smaller, ``satellite'' Tequesta camps. Protection of the Miami Circle within the boundaries of the Park, in conjunction with these other camps, would allow for comprehensive site comparison, investigation and study. We must take seriously our responsibility as guardians of this cultural landmark and recognize that only through conservation and analysis will we be able to fully grasp the magnitude of this discovery. Discussions with experts in the field of historic preservation have made me aware that the challenges faced by the people of the State of Florida in their efforts to save the Circle are not unlike those encountered during other attempts to save threatened monuments to their heritage--be they tornado-damaged barns that housed soldiers during the Civil War or missing links in the Underground Railroad discovered in the course of site preparation for development. I'm working with experts in this field to identify ways that the federal government might become a partner in these types of emergency situations so that sites of cultural significance will not fall victim to natural occurrences or development. I hope to introduce legislation soon that will give Americans the opportunity to save historic landmarks that they have identified in their own communities. There is no Federal emergency fund or program to save the Miami Circle. However, the annexation of the 2.2 acre Miami Circle property into Biscayne National Park, if found to be appropriate in a feasibility study, will save the Miami Circle from bulldozers and cement pourers, will allow us to gain a greater understanding of the Tequesta culture, and will be a valuable asset to our National Parks System. We will not only be preserving a valuable piece of history, but will also provide a fitting gateway to one of our Nation's newest National Parks.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this resolution--``The Federal Tobacco Recovery and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Resolution of 1999''-- urges the Administration to set aside funds from any Federal tobacco- related litigation for the primary purpose of strengthening the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and second to help pay for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. In the President's January 19, 1999 State of the Union Address he announced that the Justice Department was preparing a litigation plan to take tobacco companies to court and that the funds recovered from such an effort would be used to strengthen the Medicare program. The details of the Justice Department's litigation plan are still not known at this time. However, the United States Senate should be on record as to how any funds recovered should be spent. It is my belief that our first priority must be to shore up the Medicare Trust Fund which, by the most recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, shows the program going into insolvency in 2010. The second use of these funds should then go to help defray the costs of a Medicare prescription drug benefit. While this resolution states clearly as to how these funds ought to be spent, a few things must be made clear: 1. This resolution must not impede our efforts to address the immediate need among seniors for access to affordable prescription drugs. We must do something now and must not use this resolution as an excuse not to act now. 2. The funding mechanism for this benefit is not a tax, is not a payroll increase, is not a premium increase and does not tap into the ``surplus''. Some of you might ask the question, ``Why should we look to the tobacco industry to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit?'' The answer to this question is clear. Tobacco companies produce a product that is responsible for millions of deaths and billions of dollars worth of tobacco-related illness in this country. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for what the tobacco industry is primarily responsible for. Medicare alone is estimated to incur more than $10 billion in expenses for the treatment of tobacco-related illness every year. This figure reflects what Medicare covers. What this figure does not reflect is the amount of money paid out of the pockets of beneficiaries for all the outpatient prescription drugs needed for the treatment of tobacco- related illness that Medicare does not cover. The types of drugs I am referring to include: Zyban--The only prescription drug available to assist smokers in quitting. This would be a key element in a smoking cessation and broader prevention strategy. Bronchodilators--used in the treatment of emphysema. Nitroglycerin--used in the treatment of angina pectoris (reduction in blood flow to the heart). Cholestyramine and Colestipol--used in the treatment of high cholesterol. Calcium Channel Blockers/Diuretics/Beta Blockers/Vasodilators--used in the treatment of high blood pressure. The use of tobacco products and the cost of treatment is draining the Medicare program. But it is costing Medicare beneficiaries their lives. According to the American Cancer Society, individuals who smoke have double the heart attack risk of non-smokers. Cigarette smoking is the biggest risk factor for sudden cardiac death. And smokers who have a heart attack are more likely to die and die suddenly (within an hour) than are non-smokers. These are real costs that real people face every day. Combine these sobering facts with the overwhelming desire among nearly all our colleagues, the Nation's leading policy experts, and most importantly, beneficiaries of the program, that prescription drugs must be included in any reform of the Medicare program. The need for prescription drugs is undeniable. Just listen to some of the facts: 80 percent of retired persons take a prescription drug every day. Annual drug expenditures for the average Medicare beneficiary are approximately $600. While individuals 65 or older represent 12 percent of the U.S. population, they consume more than one-third of all prescription drugs. Excluding the cost of premiums, drugs account for almost one-third of the elderly's health costs and expenditures. Approximately 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries account for nearly half of all drug spending among the elderly. By 2007, the Health Care Financing Administration projects that drug costs will make up over 8 percent of total health care spending (in 1996 this figure was 6 percent). Combine this need with the fact that in a recent study published in the journal Health Affairs, approximately one third of all Medicare beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage at all. And the two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries that reportedly do have coverage (through supplemental programs such as Medigap or employee- based retirement health plans) have coverage that is not uniform, often limited, and frequently very expensive. A recent study conducted by the League of Women Voters and the Kaiser Family Foundation, in which over 6,500 of current and future Medicare beneficiaries were interviewed on their views of reforming the Medicare program, found that after fraud, waste, and abuse, the number one concern for beneficiaries is access to affordable prescription drugs. Advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering have brought about a true revolution in the care and treatment of patients. What once seemed science fiction in 1965 is today's scientific reality. In today's, and tomorrow's, health care system, prescription drugs are an integral part of every health care professional's medical arsenal. But these advances in technology have come at a price. A price that, for many seniors, is not affordable. Or even worse, forces them to make decisions nobody should face. Decisions about purchasing drugs or paying the rent. Or skipping doses of a prescription or reducing the dosage to make it last longer-- decisions that can often have serious health consequences. What good are the best drugs in the world if nobody can afford them or they bankrupt people trying to do the right thing? This is where this resolution makes a difference. This resolution says that we ought to find a way to pay for prescription drugs. To pay for them in a manner that is fiscally responsible. As I noted earlier, this resolution does not guarantee a Medicare prescription drug benefit since it is contingent upon a successful litigation effort by the Justice Department. And, the size and scope of a benefit funded by such a recovery would be dependent on the size of the recovery. To give my colleagues a sense of the potential size of a successful litigation effort, and using the recent State tobacco settlement as a benchmark, we could expect a Federal lawsuit that could match or exceed the $206 billion settlement of the States. So this is no small undertaking and has the potential to have far reaching, positive consequences for the Medicare program. This resolution would also prioritize the types of prescription drugs that ought to be funded. First priority would go to funding drugs used in the treatment of tobacco-related illness. If additional funds are available, the range of drugs could then be expanded. I want to re-iterate that this resolution should not be used to take this distinguished body off the hook for addressing the immediate need among seniors for affordable prescription drugs. We must continue to work to find a way to handle this problem now. Our resolution, if adopted, would provide momentum for this effort and for the Justice Department's litigation efforts. Finally, this resolution has the support of the nation's largest senior membership organization, the American Association of Retired Persons. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. President, last week, we had very heated debate on the question of whether the Federal Government should designate a portion of the tobacco settlements received by the 50 individual States and require them to use those designated funds for certain specific purposes. By more than a 2-to-1 margin, the Senate rejected that proposal. There were a number of reasons why the Senate rejected that proposal. I think they were strong and compelling reasons. They included the fact that the States had initiated these litigations against the tobacco industry without the assistance of the Federal Government, that the States were acting responsibly in utilizing the tobacco funds; and I believe a persuasive reason was the fact that the Federal Government announced its intention to initiate its own litigation against the tobacco industry for its loss of revenue through programs such as Medicare to tobacco-related diseases. This amendment builds upon that debate of last week. It builds, also, upon a statement that was made by the President in his January 19 State of the Union Address in which the President stated that the Justice Department was preparing a litigation plan to take tobacco companies to court, and that the funds recovered from that effort would be used to strengthen the Medicare program. The details of the Justice Department litigation plan are still unknown at this time. However, I think it is appropriate that the Senate should be on record as to how these funds, when recovered, should be utilized. It is my belief that the first priority must be to strengthen the Medicare system, and that the most appropriate method of achieving that objective is to provide that the first call of any recovery from a Federal tobacco litigation would be to replace those funds in the Medicare trust fund that have been excessively expended in order to treat tobacco-related afflictions. Second is that those funds should be used to commence a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Why is it appropriate that the second call for these funds should be to fund a prescription medication benefit? These reasons include that a substantial amount of the expenditures for tobacco-related diseases end up having a pharmacological cost, and some of the most used and most expensive medications are those which are related to the treatment through prescription medication of tobacco- related diseases. Zyban, for instance, is the only prescription drug available to assist smokers in quitting their addiction. Other drugs that relate to bronchitis, used for treatment in emphysema, nitroglycerin, and used for treatment of angina pectoris, a disease frequently associated with tobacco use, are examples of the types of prescription medications that are utilized in large part because of a tobacco affliction. The use of tobacco products is costing Medicare by draining its resources. But it is costing the Medicare beneficiaries potentially their lives. According to the American Cancer Society, individuals who smoke have double the heart attack risk of nonsmokers. Therefore, they are more likely to require the medication associated with heart disease. Cigarette smoking is the biggest risk factor for sudden cardiac death. Smokers who had a heart attack are more likely to die, and die suddenly, than nonsmokers. These are real costs, these are real people whose lives are at stake. Mr. President, just listen to some of the facts in terms of the use by our Medicare beneficiary population of prescription medication-- medication which today is not covered by the Medicare program. Eighty percent of retired persons take at least one prescribed drug every day. Annual drug expenditures for the average Medicare beneficiary is $600. While individuals 65 or older represent only 12 percent of the United States population, they consume more than one-third of all prescription drugs. Excluding the cost of premiums, drugs account for almost one-third of the elderly's health costs and expenditures. Approximately 10 percent of Medicare beneficiary accounts for nearly half of all drug spending among the elderly. By the year 2007, the Health Care Finance Administration projects that drug costs will make up over eight percent of total health care spending. This compares to 6 percent as recently as 1996. Mr. President, these are all reasons why it is appropriate that as the Federal Government commences its litigation to recover the cost that the Federal Government has expended through programs such as Medicare, that the first use of these funds should be to strengthen Medicare, and the second use should be to commence the funding of a prescription drug benefit. This proposal is receiving the strong support of groups which represent the interests of older Americans. The AARP has officially endorsed the concept of utilizing recoveries from the to be litigation by the Federal Government for purposes of strengthening Medicare and then providing for a prescription drug benefit. The American Association of Retired Persons is a strong voice in support of this proposal. Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues give their support in adopting this amendment. Mr. President, I ask uanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the American Association of Retired Persons.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which is cosponsored by Senators Snowe and Feingold.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we learned last year that five years of fiscal austerity and economic growth had transformed a $290 billion deficit into the first budget surplus in more than a generation. I am dedicated to strengthening the nation's long-term economic prospects through prudent fiscal policy. This discipline helped to create favorable economic, fiscal, demographic and political conditions to address the long-term Social Security and Medicare deficits that will accompany the aging of our nation's population. These deficits threaten to undo the hard work and fiscal discipline of recent years as well as undermine our potential for future economic growth. But that success did not give the Congress license to return to the free-spending ways of the past--especially since 100 percent of the surplus was the result of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to save this money until Social Security's long-term solvency is assured. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the last legislative action of the last Congress made a mockery of our promises to be fiscally disciplined. In the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, we passed a $532 billion Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Included in that was $21.4 billion in so-called ``emergency'' spending. Since that $21.4 billion could be approved without offsets, that funding came right out of the surplus--reducing it from $80 billion to $59 billion. That action would have been more palatable had all of the supposedly ``emergency'' funds been allocated for true emergencies. But while some of the $21.4 billion was used to fund what had traditionally been accepted as emergencies--necessary expenditures for sudden, urgent or unforeseen temporary needs--much of it was not. For example, the Y2K computer problem received $3.35 billion. And $100 million went to a new visitors center at the Capitol. These projects might be worthy. They might be mandatory. But to label them ``emergency'' threatens to undermine efforts to safeguard the surplus of Social Security. Even worse, this budgetary slight of hand was also used to increase funding for projects that had been funded in the regular appropriations process. For example, after previously allocating $270.5 billion for defense, Congress provided an additional $8.3 billion in ``emergency'' defense spending in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. And that's not all. Because these pseudo-emergency spending provisions were included in an Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report, they could not be removed without sending the entire funding package down to defeat. Members of both Houses were left with an unpalatable choice: shut down the government, or steal from our children's and grandchildren's Social Security surplus. Mr. President, that's not a choice. It's a national disgrace. It is vital that we institute an emergency spending process that responds quickly to true emergencies without opening the door to misuse. We must establish procedural safeguards to deter future Congresses from misusing the emergency spending process. We should not attach any emergency spending to non-emergency legislation or designate emergency spending measures that do not meet the definition of an emergency. Mr. President, in February I was pleased to join Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine in introducing legislation that will protect our newly won budget surplus from false, emergency budgetary alarms. We proposed three reforms. First, to create a point of order, similar to the Byrd Rule, that prevents non-emergency items from being included in emergency spending. This will enable members to challenge the validity of any individual item that is designated an emergency without defeating the entire emergency spending bill. Second, to require a 60-vote super-majority in the Senate for passage of any bill that contains emergency spending, whether it is designated an ``emergency'' spending bill or not. This will encourage Congress to either pay for supplemental appropriations or make sure they represent a true emergency. And third, to make all proposed emergency spending subject to a 60- vote point of order in the Senate. This rule will help to prevent non-emergency items from ever being included in emergency legislation. But even if passed, our legislation will not be the total cure for Congress' budding addiction to emergency spending. In the short term, it is vital that we immediately replenish the surplus with the funds that were ``borrowed'' last fall. On the day after passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Act--October 21, 1998--I wrote the President and asked that the federal government commit itself to restoring funding the the non-traditional ``emergency'' items during this fiscal year. I did not receive a response. So in January, I again wrote to the President and made the same request for a commitment to fiscal discipline. Once again, I have not received a response. And on January 18, 1999, Roll Call published an opinion piece of mine in which I asked the President to address this subject in his State of the Union address. He did not. Fortunately, the United States Constitution says that the Congress need not wait for the President. We can--and must--take the steps necessary to restore the budget surplus to its previous levels. And we must do that now, before the urge to spend the surplus becomes a full-fledged addiction. To that end, tonight I am introducing a Sense of the Senate Resolution that starts the process of rectifying last fall's budgetary process. Its message is simple: Congress and the President should restore those funds that were inappropriately deemed as emergencies and taken from the budget surplus. Mr. President, as we debate the first post-deficit Budget Resolution in more than a quarter-century, it is vital that the American people know that we will maintain the fiscal discipline that has helped to produce our favorable economic climate. Fiscal responsibility means taking responsibility for our mistakes-- and ensuring that we do not misuse our emergency spending powers. The next Congress that leaves the door wide open to raids on the surplus will be the one that passes on more debt--and a less secure Social Security system--to our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, we have heard much today--and I particularly commend you and Senator Grams of Minnesota for the amendment that you just offered--on the subject of locking up the non-Social Security surplus in excess of that which is currently anticipated. We have considered several proposals throughout the day today. I anticipate other proposals of a similar nature will be considered tomorrow. I believe there is a strong resolve among the Members of the Senate to protect both the Social Security surplus and the non-Social Security surplus and to use it for appropriate purposes. I might say personally that I believe the first use of the money should be to reduce the enormous national debt that we have accumulated over the last 30 years, and I will advocate that be the priority purpose. Unless we first direct our attention to protecting the surplus itself, there won't be anything left, no matter how tightly it is contained in a lockbox to be used for any of these desirable ends. So our first goal must be to focus on how can we protect the surplus itself, and then see that the surplus is used for appropriate purposes. Recently, Senator Olympia Snowe and myself introduced legislation which was intended to close one of the loopholes which you, Mr. President, have just alluded to. That was a major source of leakage of the surplus as recently as October of last year. That was the inappropriate use of the so-called ``emergency appropriations account.'' Certainly there are emergencies. We have a policy that where there are emergencies defined as being ``unexpected events,'' particularly of a scale that is beyond the capacity of a local community to appropriately respond without Federal assistance, that for those true emergencies we do not require that there be an offset in spending, or a tax increase to pay for them. The problem is that last October an appropriate public policy for true emergencies was stretched out of recognition by having many other items which had never in the past been thought of as emergencies included in that emergency account, and suddenly over $21 billion was expended. It was expended in a way, Mr. President, because it was included in a conference committee report that was not subject to amendment that was no way to excise, to apply a scalpel to cut out those inappropriate items. The amendment that we are offering in the form of a sense of a Senate would commit this Senate to first analyst those items in that $21 billion emergency expenditure that is outside the traditional definition of an emergency, and we would commit ourselves in this fiscal year and in the next two fiscal years when expenditures of those funds are provided for pursuant to our action in October to find offsets. That is, we would not continue to treat them as emergencies. Just because we made a serious error last fall, we are not committed to continuing to repeat that error this year, next year, and two years from now. Let me just illustrate with this graph why I think focusing on protecting the surplus is so critical. In 1998, we had a total Social Security surplus of the $99 billion. The first thing that came off the top of that $99 billion was that we had a $27 billion deficit in the non-Social Security account. The first use of the Social Security surplus in 1998 was to pay the deficit, and the rest of the budget. Then in addition to that, in 1998, we designated $3 billion as emergency outlays, which meant that we didn't have to either find new taxes to pay for them, or cut spending someplace else to replace these emergency expenditures. They came out of the surplus. What started out as a $99 billion surplus ended up as a $69 billion surplus. So effectively, $30 billion that should have gone to protect the Social Security fund was drained away to pay for deficit elsewhere in the Federal Government, and for emergency accounts. In 1999, we start with a Social Security surplus of $127 billion. Again, the first call on that was to pay the deficit in the rest of the Federal Government, which, fortunately, has significantly shrunk from $27 billion year before to $3 billion in the year 1999. But what ballooned was the emergency account. This is where that October raid on the surplus showed up in our 1999 account with a $13 billion hit against the Social Security surplus. Last year we lost $16 billion that should have gone to protect the solvency of the Social Security fund and was used to fund other Federal deficits, emergencies, a significant proportion of which were emergencies in name only. We have already started to ``cook the cake'' for the year 2000 where we are projecting a non-Social Security deficit of $5 billion. I was pleased with some of the remarks that our Presiding Officer made earlier this evening in which he indicated that maybe when the next estimate of our national fiscal position based on the strength of the economy is made we will in fact not face this $5 billion deficit in fiscal year 2000. I hope his prophesy comes to be. But we also have already added $5 billion by the emergency, so-called emergency, expenditures of October of 1998, to the year 2000 fiscal year. So, with a $138 billion Social Security surplus, we are going to be reducing it by $10 billion to pay off deficits elsewhere and these emergency accounts. So the amendment we are offering states that we commit ourselves that we will first closely scrutinize those items which were listed as an emergency in October of 1998, and for those that do not meet the test of being a true emergency, that we will commit ourselves to find appropriate offsets to pay for those emergencies and not use them as a further raid against the Social Security system and against the surplus which is to provide for its solvency. Mr. President, I anticipate that not only on this legislation but on other legislation which will be presented by the budget and the Governmental Affairs Committee, we will be considering some fundamental changes in the way in which we deal with emergency appropriations so we will not ever repeat the larceny against the Social Security trust fund and against the surpluses which support it that occurred late at night in October of 1998. I urge my colleagues to take the first step towards overcoming the indignity that we committed to the Social Security system last October by committing ourselves to restore to the Social Security surplus those expenditures which were inappropriately listed as emergencies. I urge the adoption of this amendment when it comes before the Senate tomorrow.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I will submit. First is in the form of a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Amendment No. 164 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that funds recovered from any Federal tobacco-related litigation should be set-aside for the purpose of first strengthening the Medicare trust fund and second to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit)

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three congressional fellows in my office, Sean McCluskie, Matt Barry, and Angela Ewell-Madison, be granted the privilege of the floor during further consideration of the legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to offer a personal tribute to the countless Americans who personify the finest traditions of charity by giving much-needed humanitarian supplies to the storm- ravaged people of Central America. We are a generous people. For centuries, we have responded to human needs, to end suffering and to help those who were afflicted by the wrath of nature. I have just returned from Central America, where the devastation of Hurricane Mitch is still felt by millions, many of whom are children. In communities throughout this neighboring region, storm victims continue to lack basic food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Damage to roads and bridges hampers the ability to move goods to market, and to transport emergency supplies. As a repeat visitor to Central America since Hurricane Mitch, I can personally attest to the widespread human suffering caused by this fierce storm. But I have also witnessed the outpouring of humanitarian assistance from the United States and its impact in Central America. By any measure, the myriad acts of kindness by the American people to our neighbors in need have been inspirational to all those who deplore the hunger of a child or the suffering of the sick. The list of examples of the humanitarian response to Hurricane Mitch is indeed lengthy, but I would like to cite a few examples. As we paused last fall to celebrate Thanksgiving, a young Floridian named Abhishek Gupta read news accounts of the poor and needy at home and abroad. This high school student, along with other young people, raised thousands of dollars for charities in Florida and to help the victims of Hurricane Mitch in Central America. During the period between Christmas and New Year's Abhishek joined a medical mission to Honduras and Nicaragua, taking food, clothing and medical supplies. Meanwhile, for years the American Nicaraguan Foundation has helped distribute donations in Nicaragua through local outlets, including Catholic relief groups. In response to Hurricane Mitch, the foundation purchased and received food and medicine for victims. With transport help from the U.S. military, these supplies were part of the immediate response in November to hurricane devastation. Rebuilding the hard-hit communities of Central America will be a long-term process, and much work remains to be done. But as we re- commit ourselves this year to continue to help victims of last year's hurricane, we should applaud the multitudes of kind-hearted and dedicated people who have given time and resources to assist our neighbors.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what we have at stake here is that the Federal Government is dealing with the wrong issue at the wrong time. It is time for the Federal Government to move on. The way in which the Federal Government should move on is by pursuing its own litigation against the tobacco industry rather than trying to steal a portion of the State settlement. I was, therefore, very pleased that the President, in his State of the Union Message, indicated that it was the intention of the Federal Government to pursue precisely such a course of action. Let me say, Mr. President, that for those of us, like Senator Harkin and others, who joined last year in an effort to craft a bipartisan tobacco bill, we recognize that the most significant way in which we will reduce teenage smoking is to increase the price of cigarettes. Every other technique to reduce teenage smoking pales in comparison with increasing the price. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that for every 10-percent increase in the price of cigarettes, there will be a 7-percent reduction in smoking by teenagers. The Federal Government's potential claims against the tobacco industry are much greater than the States. The Medicare Program is much larger than Medicaid. The Federal Government has all the array of antitrust and RICO claims which the States so successfully pursued. What we need to be encouraging the administration to do is to aggressively carry out the direction of the President to effectively bring action against the tobacco industry. And those will be the funds that will be 100 percent under the control of the Federal Government for the purposes that it considers most appropriate. My own feeling is that we ought to use a substantial share of those Federally derived funds from successful litigation against the tobacco industry to add to the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, and then to use a portion of those to assist in financing what the American people desperately want, which is a prescription drug benefit, a major share of which will go to dealing with the illnesses generated by tobacco use.

Mr. GRAHAM. So Mr. President, the first assumption that all this money was generated by Medicaid claims is fundamentally inaccurate. The second assumption, which is that unless Washington acts the States will fritter this money away, is a fundamental assault against the principles of Federalism: That we are a Nation in which political power is divided between the States and the Federal Government, and that we have a respectful appreciation of the responsibility of our State partners. In the case of the State of Florida, through the use of the initial tobacco settlement money, 250,000 children who previously did not have financing for health care now have that financing. That was proposed by former Governor Lawton Chiles. Current Governor Jeb Bush has suggested the establishment of an endowment so that these funds would be protected in perpetuity and the interest earnings from that endowment would be used for a variety of children's and seniors' programs. That not only indicates the care with which the States are using, but the fact that it is a bipartisan issue, the appropriate use of these funds. Let us face it, those State officials, those Governors, those State legislators are just as much accountable to the voters as we are. And should they act in a way that the voters consider to be inappropriate, they will suffer the consequences of those actions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Let me complete my final comments, and then I will yield.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. There are no other speakers on our side of the aisle, so I also yield back the remainder of our time.