Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join my good friend and colleague Senator Chafee in support of the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act. This bill will spur growth and preservation of historic neighborhoods across the country by providing a limited tax credit for qualified rehabilitation expenditures to historic homes. In virtually every corner of this land, homes in which our grandparents and parents grew up, communities and neighborhoods that nurtured vibrant families, schools that were good places to learn and churches and synagogues that were filled on days of prayer, have suffered the ravages of decay. Every year we lose thousands of historic housing units that are either demolished or abandoned. We are losing both physical structures and the historic past that these physical structures represent. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will stimulate rehabilitation of historic homes while contributing to the revitalization of urban communities. The Federal tax credit provided in the legislation is modeled after the existing Federal commercial historic rehabilitation tax credit. Since 1981, this commercial tax credit has facilitated the preservation of many historic structures such as Union Station in Washington, DC. In my home state of Florida, the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment tax credit has resulted in over 300 rehabilitation projects since 1974. These projects range from the restoration of art deco hotels in Miami Beach, to the preservation of Ybor City in Tampa and the Springfield Historic District in Jacksonville. The tax credit, however, has never applied to personal residences. This legislation that Senator Chafee and I are cosponsoring is designed to empower the one major constituency that has been barred from using the existing credit--homeowners. It is time we provide this incentive to homeowners to restore and preserve homes in America's historic communities. Like the existing investment credit, this bill would provide a credit to homeowners equal to 20 percent of a qualified rehabilitation expenditures made on an eligible building that is used as a principle residence by the owner. The amount of the credit would be limited to $40,000 for each principal residence. Eligible buildings would be those that are listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places, or a nationally certified state or local register, and contributing buildings in national, state or local historic districts. Recognizing that the states can best administer laws affecting unique communities, the act gives power to the Secretary of the Interior to work with states to implement a number of provisions. The bill also targets Americans at all economic levels. It provides lower income Americans with the option to elect a Mortgage Credit Certificate in lieu of the tax credit. This certificate allows Americans who cannot take advantage of the tax credit to reduce the interest rate on the mortgage that secures the purchase and rehabilitation of a historic home. The credit would also be available for condominiums and co-ops, as well as single-family buildings. If a building were to be rehabilitated by a developer for sale to a homeowner, the credit would pass through to the homeowner. Since one purpose of the bill is to provide incentives for middle-income and more affluent families to return to older towns and cities, the bill does not discriminate among taxpayers on the basis of income. Mr. President, the time has come for Congress to get serious about urban renewal. For too long, we have sat on the sidelines watching idly as our citizens slowly abandoned entire homes and neighborhoods in urban settings, leaving cities like Miami in Florida and others around the nation in financial jeopardy. This legislation affords fiscally stressed cities and towns a way to put abandoned buildings back on the tax rolls, while strengthening their income and sales tax base. It will encourage more affluent families to claim a stake in older towns and neighborhoods. It offers developers, realtors, and homebuilders a new realm of economic opportunity in revitalizing decaying buildings. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act does not reinvent the wheel. In addition to the existing commercial historic rehabilitation credit, the proposed bill incorporates features from several tax incentives for the preservation of historic homes. Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Utah have pioneered their own successful versions of the historic preservation tax incentive for homeownership. At the federal level, this legislation would promote historic home preservation nationwide, allowing future generations of Americans to visit and reside in homes that tell the unique history of our communities. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will offer enormous potential for saving historic homes and bringing entire neighborhoods back to life. I urge all my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and Teutonic cousin for his kind remarks and for his comments against this misguided amendment. First, I strongly support the original purpose of this legislation, which is to provide relief to our neighbors in the Central American countries and the Caribbean which were so devastated last year by a series of hurricanes. I had the opportunity to visit Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Dominican Republic which were primarily affected by those hurricanes and can testify that the need is great and that the humanitarian assistance which the United States has already provided, and which this legislation will allow us to continue, has been of immeasurable value and has added to the strength of the relationship between the United States and those affected countries. I also strongly support the tobacco recoupment amendment which was added in the Appropriations Committee by my colleague, the Senator from Texas. In addition to the wisdom of the amendment, there is a sense of urgency to move forward with this. Many State legislatures are meeting as we meet this week. Many of those legislatures are well along toward their adjournment date. Many of those States are awaiting our action on this issue to make a determination as to what is the most appropriate way to utilize funds that have been secured through the tobacco settlement for purposes that will benefit their citizens. We need to resolve this issue and resolve it in a way that has been suggested by the amendment recommended by the Appropriations Committee, which is that the Federal Government keep its hands off this money which has been secured solely as a result of the actions of the States. Let me give a brief history of this issue, with particular focus on the State of Florida, which was one of the first four States to secure an individual settlement with the tobacco industry. Under the leadership of our departed friend and colleague, Lawton Chiles, the Florida Legislature amended its law to allow a specific statute to be passed, under which the State brought litigation against the tobacco industry. At the time that occurred, Governor Chiles wrote a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno suggesting that the Federal Government join in the lawsuit--not join in the lawsuit as it relates to any specific claim, such as the Medicaid claim, but, rather, join in the lawsuit to advance Federal interests that were at stake. I will talk later about what those Federal interests are. This is the letter--and I quote it in part--dated June 6, 1995, which was sent from the Attorney General to the Governor of Florida: Dear Governor Chiles: Thank you for your letter concerning the possibility of the Department of Justice participating in the State of Florida's lawsuit against cigarette manufacturers. As you know, similar suits have been filed by the States of Mississippi, Minnesota and West Virginia. At my request, the Department's Civil Division has been monitoring the tobacco litigation. Thus far, we have not been persuaded that participation would be advisable. We will continue to actively monitor these cases, however, and will reconsider this decision should circumstances persuade us otherwise in this regard. There were no subsequent reconsiderations, and the Federal Government essentially said, ``We will stand apart from these States' efforts.'' Stand apart until the States, having spent enormous amounts of money, effort, and political resources now have secured a settlement. At this point, the Federal Government wishes to invite itself back into this litigation by, in the President's budget proposal, taking half the money and having the Federal Government spend it or, in this amendment proposal, having the Federal Government serve as the parent for the States and tell them how to spend their tobacco settlement money. The assumption of this legislation started with another letter from Washington which went to the States which stated, in effect, that the Federal Health Care Financing Administration was going to initiate an administrative collection procedure under an arcane provision of the Social Security statute--specifically, 1903(D)(3)--in which it would recoup a substantial portion of the States' settlements. The specific language which was relied upon by the Federal Health Care Financing Administration is the language which states: The pro rata share to which the United States is equitably entitled, as determined by the Secretary, of the net amount recovered during any quarter by the State or any political subdivision thereof with respect to medical assistance furnished under the State plan. . . . Mr. President, I argue that that statute, which is the basis of the Federal efforts to recoup, is inapplicable to the tobacco litigation. What that statute was intended to do was, in the case where a State had, for instance, overpaid a provider and subsequently received a repayment, that a portion of that repayment that was related to the percentage of the Federal Medicaid share under the State Medicaid plan would go back to the Federal Government. This was not recovered pursuant to any State health care plan. It was recovered based on litigation brought by the States on a variety of claims against the Federal Government. And that is the first of two fundamental erroneous assumptions behind this amendment. And that first assumption is that 100 percent of the collections that the States have made were as a result of the Medicaid claims; and, therefore, that the Federal Government can legitimately assume the right to control its share or 50 percent of those funds. That assumption is just fundamentally incorrect. First, Florida's causes of action included a violation of the State's RICO statute, the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. Fourteen other States filed a similar RICO claim. Remedies available to the States under RICO statutes are enormous: disgorgement of profits and treble damages. I argue that these claims far exceed any money damages available under the Medicaid claim. Twenty-eight States filed claims under violations of consumer protection laws. Remedies include significant monetary penalties per violation--per sale of each pack of cigarettes--plus disgorgement of profits. For instance, the Missouri remedy allows for a penalty of $1,000 per pack of cigarettes sold. The Oregon remedy was up to $25,000 per violation, which could have potentially totaled billions of dollars. Thirteen States filed under public nuisance. In Iowa, the remedy requested was equal to not the profits made through cigarette sales, but the price of cigarettes sold in each year involved. Twenty States filed antitrust claims. Available remedies again include disgorgement of profits and treble damages. In three States, the courts dismissed the Medicaid claims--Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia. So those States' claims could not have included a Medicaid component because it had been rejected by the courts prior to the settlement. Further, the State of Florida, which did have a Medicaid claim among all of its other claims, estimates that at most only 10 percent of its entire settlement could have been attributed to Medicaid. I ask the Senator from Texas if I can have an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. So Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership that the Senator from Texas has provided. I appreciate her generosity and time. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join my good friend and colleague Senator Chafee in support of the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act. This bill will spur growth and preservation of historic neighborhoods across the country by providing a limited tax credit for qualified rehabilitation expenditures to historic homes. In virtually every corner of this land, homes in which our grandparents and parents grew up, communities and neighborhoods that nurtured vibrant families, schools that were good places to learn and churches and synagogues that were filled on days of prayer, have suffered the ravages of decay. Every year we lose thousands of historic housing units that are either demolished or abandoned. We are losing both physical structures and the historic past that these physical structures represent. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will stimulate rehabilitation of historic homes while contributing to the revitalization of urban communities. The Federal tax credit provided in the legislation is modeled after the existing Federal commercial historic rehabilitation tax credit. Since 1981, this commercial tax credit has facilitated the preservation of many historic structures such as Union Station in Washington, DC. In my home state of Florida, the existing Historic Rehabilitation Investment tax credit has resulted in over 300 rehabilitation projects since 1974. These projects range from the restoration of art deco hotels in Miami Beach, to the preservation of Ybor City in Tampa and the Springfield Historic District in Jacksonville. The tax credit, however, has never applied to personal residences. This legislation that Senator Chafee and I are cosponsoring is designed to empower the one major constituency that has been barred from using the existing credit--homeowners. It is time we provide this incentive to homeowners to restore and preserve homes in America's historic communities. Like the existing investment credit, this bill would provide a credit to homeowners equal to 20 percent of a qualified rehabilitation expenditures made on an eligible building that is used as a principle residence by the owner. The amount of the credit would be limited to $40,000 for each principal residence. Eligible buildings would be those that are listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places, or a nationally certified state or local register, and contributing buildings in national, state or local historic districts. Recognizing that the states can best administer laws affecting unique communities, the act gives power to the Secretary of the Interior to work with states to implement a number of provisions. The bill also targets Americans at all economic levels. It provides lower income Americans with the option to elect a Mortgage Credit Certificate in lieu of the tax credit. This certificate allows Americans who cannot take advantage of the tax credit to reduce the interest rate on the mortgage that secures the purchase and rehabilitation of a historic home. The credit would also be available for condominiums and co-ops, as well as single-family buildings. If a building were to be rehabilitated by a developer for sale to a homeowner, the credit would pass through to the homeowner. Since one purpose of the bill is to provide incentives for middle-income and more affluent families to return to older towns and cities, the bill does not discriminate among taxpayers on the basis of income. Mr. President, the time has come for Congress to get serious about urban renewal. For too long, we have sat on the sidelines watching idly as our citizens slowly abandoned entire homes and neighborhoods in urban settings, leaving cities like Miami in Florida and others around the nation in financial jeopardy. This legislation affords fiscally stressed cities and towns a way to put abandoned buildings back on the tax rolls, while strengthening their income and sales tax base. It will encourage more affluent families to claim a stake in older towns and neighborhoods. It offers developers, realtors, and homebuilders a new realm of economic opportunity in revitalizing decaying buildings. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act does not reinvent the wheel. In addition to the existing commercial historic rehabilitation credit, the proposed bill incorporates features from several tax incentives for the preservation of historic homes. Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Utah have pioneered their own successful versions of the historic preservation tax incentive for homeownership. At the federal level, this legislation would promote historic home preservation nationwide, allowing future generations of Americans to visit and reside in homes that tell the unique history of our communities. The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act will offer enormous potential for saving historic homes and bringing entire neighborhoods back to life. I urge all my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the President of the AFL-CIO, John J. Sweeney, directed to Fidel Castro, dated March 5, 1999, condemning the human rights conditions in Cuba.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, my friend and colleague, a friend and colleague who, unfortunately, has recently announced that his next phase of life is going to be someplace other than the Senate, started with the story of where he commenced his campaign to come to the Senate--in the beautiful, unique community of Key West. In addition to Key West's physical proximity to Cuba, Key West also has a history which is very intertwined with the long efforts of the people of Cuba to achieve freedom. It was during the period of the Cuban civil war in the 1870s, 1880s and into the 1890s that many exiles left Cuba and came to Key West to find freedom and a place from which they could relaunch their efforts to achieve freedom in their homeland. Jose Marti spoke many times in Key West to the exiled community of his dreams for a Cuba of independence and freedom. It is in Key West that there is the memorial for the USS Maine, the Tomb of the Unknown Sailor, for over 200 American sailors who were killed in Havana Harbor early in 1898--an event which contributed to the United States eventual declaration of war and involvement in what we refer to as the Spanish- American War. In Key West we find remnants of that long history of the yearning of the people of Cuba to live in freedom and independence. After having won their independence in 1898, 60 years later, it was taken away from them. For four decades, they have lived under the oppressive rule of the dictator, Fidel Castro. Last month, we recognized another dictatorship in this world, one that is not near to us but half a world away. The Senate passed a resolution calling for a condemnation of the human rights situation in China. We urged the United Nations Human Rights Commission to have that on their agenda at their soon-to-be-held meeting in Geneva. With this resolution, Senate Resolution 57, we take a similar position condemning the human rights situation in Cuba which, unfortunately, is considerably worse today than the situation in China. This resolution calls on the President to make every effort to pass a resolution at the upcoming meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemning Cuba for its abysmal record on human rights. It also calls for the reappointment of a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in Cuba. Last year, for the first time in many years, no resolution on human rights in Cuba was passed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Perhaps this hiatus in U.N. condemnation of Cuba was due to the hopes that were raised as a result of the Pope's visit in January of 1998. Unfortunately, if that were the case, there has, in fact, been a significant worsening of the human rights situation in Cuba since the Pope's visit. According to the independent group, Human Rights Watch, As 1998 drew to a close, Cuba's stepped up persecutions and harassments of dissidents, along with its refusal to grant amnesty to hundreds of remaining political prisoners or [to] reform its criminal code, marked a disheartening return to heavy-handed repression. The Cuban Government also recently passed a measure known as Law 80 which criminalizes peaceful, prodemocratic activities and independent journalism, with penalties of up to 20 years in jail. The State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Cuba for 1998 notes that the government continues to systematically violate the fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens. Human rights advocates and members of independent professional associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and lawyers are routinely harassed, threatened, arrested, detained, imprisoned and defamed by the government. All fundamental freedoms are denied to citizens. In addition, the Cuban Government severely restricts worker rights, including the right to form independent trade unions, and employs forced labor, including child labor. The most recent example of this horrible repression in Cuba is the trial of four prominent dissidents--Vladimiro Roca, Marta Beatriz Roque, Felix Bonne and Rene Gomez Manzano. They were all charged with sedition. After being detained for over 19 months for peacefully voicing their opinion, the trial of these four brave patriots has drawn international condemnation. To demonstrate the hideous nature of the Castro regime, Marta Beatriz Roque has been ill, believed to be suffering from cancer, and has been denied medical attention during her long period of detention. During the trial, authorities have rounded up scores of other individuals, including journalists and dissidents, and jailed them for the duration of the trial. The trial was conducted in complete secrecy with photographers prevented from even photographing the streets around the courthouse. This trial reminds me of the worst days of Stalinist repression in the Soviet Union. This week, Castro's dictatorship found the four dissidents guilty and sentenced them to terms ranging from 3\1/2\ to 5 years--5 years in prison for simply making a statement about democracy. This action has outraged the world. This outrageous spectacle has caused even Castro's closest friends to rethink their relationship with Cuba. Canadian Prime Minister Chretien has indicated that Canada will review its entire relationship with Castro. The European Union issued a strong statement condemning this repression. This is not the type of conduct that we have come to expect in our hemisphere, where Cuba remains the only nondemocratic government. This level of repression and complete disregard for international norms cannot be ignored. I hope that all of our colleagues will join my colleague, Senator Mack, and myself, in condemning the human rights situation in Cuba and calling for action at the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Last month, we voted unanimously to support a resolution condemning human rights in China. Unfortunately, we have within 100 miles of our shores a situation in Cuba that is worse than that halfway around the world in China--a situation that deserves the full effort of our government to assure that it is not ignored by the international community. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of newspaper items from the press in this country as well as in Europe, Latin America and in Canada, condemning the human rights abuses in Cuba.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand that we have 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, in introducing the Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1999. This legislation will create seven additional U.S. District Court judgeships in Florida--two in the Southern District and five--in the fast-growing Middle District of Florida. I want to thank Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for his recognition of the overcrowding problem facing Florida's federal district courts and for his good-faith pledge to work with Senator Grassley to consider this issue early this year. I look forward to working with all my Senate colleagues in considering this important issue. Because our number of judgeships is too small to meet the increasing demand of Florida's rapidly growing population, judges face overwhelming caseloads. Prosecutors and law-enforcement personnel are stymied in their efforts to mete out swift justice. Civil litigants are forced to endure unreasonable waits to bring their cases to resolution. Mr. President, make no mistake: Florida's federal courts are in the midst of a full-blown crisis. Prominent legal and judicial officials all over Florida have told us that this is not a tenable situation. But Floridians are not alone in their concern about overcrowded court dockets in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida. Yesterday, March 16th, the Judicial Conference of the United States--the principal policy-making body of the federal judiciary, which is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and composed of federal judges from throughout the United States--asked Congress to create 33 permanent and 25 temporary additional district judgeships. Senator Mack and I are introducing our bill so that Congress can meet the needs of Florida by providing the additional judicial resources needed for these two U.S. District Courts to meet their increasing caseload. On three previous occasions since 1976, Congress has authorized new Federal judgeships in numbers that each time exceeded the request of the Judicial Conference thus recognizing the dire needs of our court systems. The last recommendation, made in March of 1997, followed recommendations that were unheeded in September of 1992 and September of 1994. There have simply been no new judgeships since December 1, 1990. We cannot allow this new request to go unheeded again. Mr. President, many states have justifiable concerns about overcrowded federal district court dockets. However the urgent nature of Florida's judicial crisis makes our state a special case. Its Southern and Middle Districts deserve immediate attention for three main reasons. First, Florida has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the nation, a condition that has continued to worsen over the last year. Currently, the Judicial Conference has proposed all recommendations for increased judgeship based on weighted filings--a number that takes into account both the total number of cases filed per judge and the average level of case complexity. Currently the standard for each Federal district judge is 430 weighted cases per year. When the caseload exceeds 430, that district is entitled to be reviewed for purposes of an additional judge. As of September 30, 1998, the Southern District's weighted filings stood at 608 per judge. This is 41 percent above the standard and 18 percent above the national average of 516 weighted filing per judge. In the Middle District, the story was even worse--805 weighted filings per judge, a figure that ranks sixth highest in the entire nation. Middle District's weighted filings per judge from September 1996 to September 1998, a two year period, jumped from 45 percent above the standard to 87 percent above the standard and 56 percent above the national average. As of January 30, 1999, over 1,100 criminal defendants have cases pending in the Middle District. The story is even worse on the civil side of the docket, where more than 5,900 cases have yet to receive final disposition. Florida's caseload isn't going to experience a slowdown in growth anytime soon, and the judicial backlog will get worse unless Congress takes preventative action for the long-term. Second, this legislation recognizes that Florida's largest federal judicial districts are responsible for a massive area that includes nearly 80 percent of Florida residents. Last year the state's population reached 15 million, growing 15.9 percent since the 1990 census of 12.9 million. The Southern and Middle Districts combined jurisdiction stretches from key West--the southernmost city in the continental United States--north to include Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Melbourne, Fort Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, and Jacksonville. Between 1980 and 1995, the Middle District grew by a whopping 52%. It is expected to increase by an addition 21% in the next decade. However, since 1990, the last time the Judicial Conference recommended and Congress approved more judges for Florida, our U.S. District Courts have not received any additional resources from the federal government to cope with that growth. Third, this proposal will assist the work of law enforcement officials and personnel. If we are committed to ensuring that criminals face punishment in a swift manner, we must be willing to provide resources to all aspects of the judicial system. In both of these districts, drug prosecutions and other serious criminal cases make up a large percentage of the overall caseload. For example, both the Southern and Middle Districts contain High intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HITDAs). These anti-drug zones generate a substantial number of lengthy, multi-defendant prosecutions, and the additional of judges will help law enforcement officials and prosecutors in their fight against drug crimes. In addition, federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials throughout Florida, but especially in the Southern District, are being forced to spend more time combatting the cheats, fly-by-night operators, and other criminals who are engaged in a systematic campaign to defraud Medicare and other health care programs. It has been estimated that nearly twenty percent of all Medicare dollars spent in South Florida are lost to fraud. In fact, nearly 30 percent of all Medicare fraud nationwide takes place in Florida. Mr. President, it is vital that we act quickly to resolve this crisis. From 1990, in Middle District, and 1993, in Southern District, the total number of filings have gone up 62 percent. With a state population growth rate predicted to exceed 300,000 residents per year, these trends are unlikely to reverse. The addition of these judgeships will still leave both districts well above the weighted filings per judgeship standard. U.S. Federal District Courts are the first stop for all citizens involved in the federal judicial system. Most federal cases are disposed at this level and it is essential that these citizens have their claims heard in a timely manner. Congress and the White House must be vigilant in their shared responsibility for recommending, nominating, and confirming federal judicial nominees. Senator Hatch's leadership, and his determination to address Florida's special needs, are very much appreciated by the residents of our state. Our legislation is simple, sound, and will serve the interests of all Floridians. I look forward to working with Senator Mack and members of the Judiciary Committee on this matter. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this much needed legislation. Further delay in this matter will only serve to deny timely justice for thousands of crime victims and civil litigants in Florida's Southern and Middle Judicial Districts. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I have received from Chief Judge Edward B. Davis of the Southern District of Florida be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I wish to express my thanks and admiration to my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed a resolution calling for condemnation of the human rights situation in China by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. I will send to the floor shortly a similar resolution condemning the human rights situation in Cuba which, unfortunately, is considerably worse than the situation in China. This resolution calls on the President to make every effort to pass a resolution at the upcoming meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission criticizing Cuba for its abysmal record on human rights. It also calls for the reappointment of a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in Cuba. Last year, for the first time in many years, no resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba was passed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Perhaps this was due to the hopes that were raised, raised as a result of the Pope's visit to Cuba in January of 1998. Unfortunately, there has been a significant worsening of the human rights situation in Cuba over the last year. Example: The independent group, Human Rights Watch, states: As 1998 drew to a close, Cuba's stepped up persecutions and harassment of dissidents, along with its refusal to grant amnesty to hundreds of remaining political prisoners or reform its criminal code, marked a disheartening return to heavy-handed repression. Example: The Cuban Government recently passed a measure known as Law 80 which criminalizes peaceful prodemocratic activities and independent journalism, with penalties, Mr. President, of up to 20 years of imprisonment. Example: The State Department, in its recent report on human rights dated February 26, 1999, notes that the Government of Cuba continues to systematically violate the fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens. Human rights advocates and members of independent professional associations, including journalists, economists, doctors and lawyers, are routinely harassed, threatened, arrested, detained, imprisoned and defamed by the Government. All fundamental freedoms are denied to the citizens. In addition, the Cuban Government severely restricts worker rights, including the right to form independent trade unions, and employs forced labor, including child labor. Example, and the most recent and continuing example of the horrible repression in Cuba, is the trial of four prominent dissidents-- Vladimiro Roca, Marta Beatriz Roque, Felix Bonne, and Rene Gomez Manzano. These prominent dissidents are now at trial on charges of sedition. After being detained for over 18 months for the peaceful voicing of their opinions, the trial of these four brave individuals has drawn international condemnation. To demonstrate the hideous nature of the Castro regime, Marta Beatriz Roque has been ill, believed to be suffering from cancer, but has been denied medical attention during her detention. During the trial, authorities have rounded up scores of other individuals, including journalists and dissidents, and jailed them for the duration of the trial. The trial was conducted in complete secrecy, with photographers prevented from even photographing the streets around the courthouse in which the trial was held. Mr. President, this is not the type of conduct that we have come to expect in our hemisphere, where Cuba remains the only nondemocratic government. This level of repression and complete disregard for international norms cannot be ignored. The human rights situation in Cuba calls out for action by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. I am going to ask, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record two editorials on this subject. But let me read one from the Washington Post of this week, March 2, 1999. This editorial says, in part: Many of the counties engaged in these contacts with Cuba do so on the basis that by their policy of ``constructive engagement'' they are opening up the regime more effectively to democratic and free-market currents than is the United States by its harder-line policy. The trial of the four provides a good test of this proposition. The four are in the vanguard of Cuba's small nonviolent political opposition. Acquittal would indicate that in this case anyway the authorities are listening to the international appeals for greater political freedom. But if the four are convicted and sentenced, it will show that the regime won't permit any opposition at all. What then will the international crowd have to say about the society- transforming power of their investments? Mr. President, last month we voted unanimously to support a similar resolution on human rights in Cuba. Unfortunately, as I indicated, the situation in Cuba is worse than in China. The situation in Cuba deserves the full effort of our Government to assure that this situation is not ignored by the international community. Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution which is cosponsored by Senators Mack, Helms, Torricelli, and DeWine. I also ask unanimous consent, to have printed in the Record the editorial I referenced from the Washington Post of March 2, and an editorial from the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel of March 2.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Grassley, Kerrey, DeWine, Torricelli, and Hutchison to introduce the Public School Construction Partnership Act. As teachers, students, parents, and school administrators know, the United States faces a school infrastructure crisis. Many of our schools are more than 50 years old and crumbling, and the General Accounting Office estimates that it will cost about $112 billion to bring them into good repair. Moreover, this estimate does not take into account the need for new construction. The U.S. Department of Education projects that some 1.9 million more students will be entering schools in the next 10 years. At current prices, it will cost about $73 billion to build the new schools needed to educate this growing student population. Mr. President, I might add that my own State is gaining 60,000 new students each year. By the end of the decade, Florida's student enrollment will have increased 25 percent more than the population as a whole. Education is rightfully a state and local matter, but the federal government can play a helpful, non-intrusive role in assisting communities overwhelmed by explosive increases in student enrollment. We at the federal level should help empower local school districts to find innovative, cost effective ways to finance new schools and repair aging ones. The bill I am introducing today with Senator Grassley provides new flexibility to state and local efforts to finance new schools and repair older ones. I believe that we should be providing a ``cafeteria plan'' of options to choose from in order to enable local and state governments to have a variety of financing tools available to them. An innovative means of financing the building or renovation of a school in an urban area like Miami won't necessarily be the best option for a rural town in Iowa. Therefore, our legislation provides four different alternatives to ease the burden of financing public school construction. One alternative is to add educational facilities to the list of 12 types of facilities that can use private activity bonds. As you can see, these bonds are used to finance a wide range of public projects: from airports and mass commuting facilities, to qualified residential rental projects and environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating facilities. The importance of adding public educational facilities to this list is that these bonds would be tax exempt. And I emphasize the word public because private non-profit elementary and secondary schools already have the ability to issue tax-exempt facility bonds. Public schools should have the same tax treatment. Our legislation gives public schools parity with private schools. The public/private partnership in school construction through the use of private activity bonds is already being used in the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia. Here is how it works: a private corporation builds the school and leases it to the school district at a reduced rate. The private entity supplements the cost of the building by leasing it for other uses during non-school hours. This approach has been a success. According to a study by Ron Utt at the Heritage Foundation, 41 new schools have either been completed or approved for construction under the Public/Private Partnership Program. In the next three years, Nova Scotia expects to replace 10 percent of its schools through such partnerships. I am optimistic that enabling communities in the United States to have the same opportunity will foster the same results. Another portion of this legislation would help relieve some of the burdens on small and rural school districts. Current law relieves small issuers of tax-exempt bonds for qualified school construction from onerous federal arbitrage regulations, but more relief is needed. The calculations required to determine the amount of arbitrage rebate are extremely complex and often require that a local government hire an outside consultant. Despite the trouble and expense of compliance, rebate amounts are usually quite small. Local governments sometimes spend much more to comply with the rebate rules than the amount actually rebated to the Treasury. This legislation would permit school districts to keep funds earned on bond proceeds instead of reimbursing the Treasury Department if the bonds offered by the district totalled less than $15 million that year, or if the bonds are spent within four years. Our legislation would also increase the amount of bonds banks can hold and still receive tax exempt status. Currently, banks may deduct their interest expense for loans if the bonds are less than $10 million in a one year period. We would increase that limit to $25 million, allowing school bonds to be bought directly by the banks without having to undertake the complexities of accessing the public capital markets. Changing these current tax laws would help local school districts throughout the United States. Our legislation would foster even more innovative approaches to finance the building and refurbishment of our public schools. Such public-private partnerships would speed construction of new schools and reduce costs to communities.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Chafee, Robb, and Mikulski, to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Act of 1999. Americans today are routinely denied coverage by their managed care plans for visits to the emergency department for legitimate emergency medical conditions. This legislation establishes a national definition, known as the prudent layperson standard, for the purposes of receiving emergency room treatment. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 applied this definition to the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The proposal would simply ensure that all private health plans afford their consumers the same kinds of protections available to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, current law places patients in the unreasonable position of fearing that payment for emergency room visits will be denied even when conditions appear to both the patient and emergency room personnel to require urgent treatment. For example, a patient who is experiencing chest pains and believes that she is having a heart attack may not be covered by a health plan if the diagnosis later turns out to be indigestion. Enactment of the ``prudent layperson'' definition would end this phenomena by ensuring coverage when a reasonable person, who believes that she is in need of care, presents herself at an emergency room and is treated. Federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), already requires that all persons who come to a hospital for emergency care be given a screening examination to determine if they are experiencing a medical emergency, and if so, that they receive stabilizing treatment before being discharged or moved to another facility. As a result, emergency, room doctors and hospitals face a catch-22. Practitioners are required by EMTALA and their own professional ethics to perform diagnostic tests and exams to rule out emergency conditions, but may be denied reimbursement due to HMO prior authorization requirements or a finding after diagnosis that the condition was not of an emergency. This legislation also provides a process for the coordination of post-stabilization care. Consider this example: a patient goes into the emergency room complaining of chest pains, in an obvious emergent condition. Subsequently, the chest pains subside, therefore, the patient is considered clinically ``stabilized.'' However, this does not mean that the patient is out of danger. At that point the emergency room physician may recommend a follow up test, such as an EKG, but is frequently unable to get the health plan to authorize any follow-up care. This portion of the bill would require that treating emergency physicians and health plans timely communicate with each other to determine what the necessary post-stabilization care should be. Health plans, in conjunction with the treating physician, may arrange for an alternative treatment plan that allows the health plan to assume care of the patient after stabilization. For instance, the plan may recommend that the patient by transferred to an in-network hospital, or it may agree to cover the tests recommended by the emergency room physician. Our legislation has been strongly endorsed by Kaiser Permanente, one of our nation's oldest, largest, and most respected managed care plans, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. The legislation has also received the strong support of the American Osteopathic Association, the Federation of American Health Systems, and the National Council of Senior Citizens, among many others. I would ask that my colleagues join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Chafee, Robb, and Mikulski, to introduce the Emergency Medical Services Act of 1999. Americans today are routinely denied coverage by their managed care plans for visits to the emergency department for legitimate emergency medical conditions. This legislation establishes a national definition, known as the prudent layperson standard, for the purposes of receiving emergency room treatment. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 applied this definition to the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The proposal would simply ensure that all private health plans afford their consumers the same kinds of protections available to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, current law places patients in the unreasonable position of fearing that payment for emergency room visits will be denied even when conditions appear to both the patient and emergency room personnel to require urgent treatment. For example, a patient who is experiencing chest pains and believes that she is having a heart attack may not be covered by a health plan if the diagnosis later turns out to be indigestion. Enactment of the ``prudent layperson'' definition would end this phenomena by ensuring coverage when a reasonable person, who believes that she is in need of care, presents herself at an emergency room and is treated. Federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), already requires that all persons who come to a hospital for emergency care be given a screening examination to determine if they are experiencing a medical emergency, and if so, that they receive stabilizing treatment before being discharged or moved to another facility. As a result, emergency, room doctors and hospitals face a catch-22. Practitioners are required by EMTALA and their own professional ethics to perform diagnostic tests and exams to rule out emergency conditions, but may be denied reimbursement due to HMO prior authorization requirements or a finding after diagnosis that the condition was not of an emergency. This legislation also provides a process for the coordination of post-stabilization care. Consider this example: a patient goes into the emergency room complaining of chest pains, in an obvious emergent condition. Subsequently, the chest pains subside, therefore, the patient is considered clinically ``stabilized.'' However, this does not mean that the patient is out of danger. At that point the emergency room physician may recommend a follow up test, such as an EKG, but is frequently unable to get the health plan to authorize any follow-up care. This portion of the bill would require that treating emergency physicians and health plans timely communicate with each other to determine what the necessary post-stabilization care should be. Health plans, in conjunction with the treating physician, may arrange for an alternative treatment plan that allows the health plan to assume care of the patient after stabilization. For instance, the plan may recommend that the patient by transferred to an in-network hospital, or it may agree to cover the tests recommended by the emergency room physician. Our legislation has been strongly endorsed by Kaiser Permanente, one of our nation's oldest, largest, and most respected managed care plans, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. The legislation has also received the strong support of the American Osteopathic Association, the Federation of American Health Systems, and the National Council of Senior Citizens, among many others. I would ask that my colleagues join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Senator Grassley, Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their bipartisan commitment to protect our nation's seniors from indiscriminate dumping by their nursing homes. I would like to request that their statements be added to the Record. The Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 has the support of the nursing home industry and senior citizen advocates. It is with their support that we encourage the Senate to take action on this important piece of legislation. I also have letters of support from the American Health Care Association, the National Seniors Law Center, and the American Association for Retired Persons which I will include in the Record. Mr. President, last year, it looked like 93-year-old Adela Mongiovi might have to spend her 61st Mother's Day away from the assisted living facility that she had called home for the last four years. Her son Nelson and daughter-in-law Geri feared that they would have to move Adela when officials at the Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center of Tampa told them that their Alzheimer's Disease-afflicted mother would have to be relocated so that the nursing home could complete ``renovations.'' As the Mongiovis told me when I met with them and visited their mother in Tampa last April, the real story far exceeded their worst fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by the Medicaid program. Ms. Mongiovi passed away during the holiday season and I send my heartfelt condolences to her family. The nursing home chain which owns the Tampa facility and several others across the United States wanted to purge its nursing homes of Medicaid residents, ostensibly to take more private insurance payers and Medicare beneficiaries which pay more per resident. This may have been a good financial decision in the short run, however, its effects on our nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a widespread basis, would be even more disastrous. In an April 7, 1998, Wall Street Journal article, several nursing home executives argued that state governments and Congress are to blame for these evictions because they have set Medicaid reimbursements too low. While Medicaid payments to nursing homes may need to be revised, playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way to send that message to Congress. And while I am willing to engage in a discussion as to the equity of nursing home reimbursement rates, my colleagues and I are not willing to allow nursing home facilities to dump patients indiscriminately. The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice elderly Americans for the sake of their bottom-line is bad enough. What is even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions. The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law allows nursing homes to discharge patients for inability to pay. If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, state and federal governments are no longer allowed to pay the affected residents' bills. They can then be conveniently and unceremoniously dumped for--you guessed it--their inability to pay. Nursing home evictions have a devastating effect on the health and well-being of some of society's most vulnerable members. A recent University of Southern California study indicated that those who are uprooted from their homes undergo a phenomenon knows as ``transfer trauma.'' For these seniors, the consequences are stark. The death rate among these seniors is two to three times higher than that for individuals who receive continuous care. Those of us who believe that our mothers, fathers, and grandparents are safe because Medicaid affects only low-income Americans need to think again. A three year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of $125,000. As a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who enter as privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and lose health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many retirees' last refuge of financial support. On April 19, 1998, the Florida Medicaid Bureau responded to evidence of Medicaid dumping in Tampa by levying a steep $260,000 fine against the Tampa nursing home. That was a strong and appropriate action, but it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared responsibility of states and the federal government. While the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid dumping is not just a Florida problem. Nursing homes which were once locally-run and family-owned are increasingly administered by multi- state, multi-facility corporations that have the power to affect seniors across the United States. Mr. President, let me also point out that the large majority of nursing homes in America treat residents well and are responsible community citizens. Our bill is simple and fair and designed to prevent future abuses by bad actors. It would prohibit current Medicaid beneficiaries or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being evicted from their homes. Adele Mongiovi was not just a ``beneficiary.'' She was also a mother and grandmother. To Ms. Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care Center of Tampa was not just an ``assisted living facility''--it was her home. Mr. President, let us provide security and peace of mind for all of our nation's seniors and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Senator Grassley, Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their bipartisan commitment to protect our nation's seniors from indiscriminate dumping by their nursing homes. I would like to request that their statements be added to the Record. The Nursing Home Residential Security Act of 1999 has the support of the nursing home industry and senior citizen advocates. It is with their support that we encourage the Senate to take action on this important piece of legislation. I also have letters of support from the American Health Care Association, the National Seniors Law Center, and the American Association for Retired Persons which I will include in the Record. Mr. President, last year, it looked like 93-year-old Adela Mongiovi might have to spend her 61st Mother's Day away from the assisted living facility that she had called home for the last four years. Her son Nelson and daughter-in-law Geri feared that they would have to move Adela when officials at the Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center of Tampa told them that their Alzheimer's Disease-afflicted mother would have to be relocated so that the nursing home could complete ``renovations.'' As the Mongiovis told me when I met with them and visited their mother in Tampa last April, the real story far exceeded their worst fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by the Medicaid program. Ms. Mongiovi passed away during the holiday season and I send my heartfelt condolences to her family. The nursing home chain which owns the Tampa facility and several others across the United States wanted to purge its nursing homes of Medicaid residents, ostensibly to take more private insurance payers and Medicare beneficiaries which pay more per resident. This may have been a good financial decision in the short run, however, its effects on our nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a widespread basis, would be even more disastrous. In an April 7, 1998, Wall Street Journal article, several nursing home executives argued that state governments and Congress are to blame for these evictions because they have set Medicaid reimbursements too low. While Medicaid payments to nursing homes may need to be revised, playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way to send that message to Congress. And while I am willing to engage in a discussion as to the equity of nursing home reimbursement rates, my colleagues and I are not willing to allow nursing home facilities to dump patients indiscriminately. The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice elderly Americans for the sake of their bottom-line is bad enough. What is even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions. The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law allows nursing homes to discharge patients for inability to pay. If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, state and federal governments are no longer allowed to pay the affected residents' bills. They can then be conveniently and unceremoniously dumped for--you guessed it--their inability to pay. Nursing home evictions have a devastating effect on the health and well-being of some of society's most vulnerable members. A recent University of Southern California study indicated that those who are uprooted from their homes undergo a phenomenon knows as ``transfer trauma.'' For these seniors, the consequences are stark. The death rate among these seniors is two to three times higher than that for individuals who receive continuous care. Those of us who believe that our mothers, fathers, and grandparents are safe because Medicaid affects only low-income Americans need to think again. A three year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of $125,000. As a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who enter as privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and lose health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many retirees' last refuge of financial support. On April 19, 1998, the Florida Medicaid Bureau responded to evidence of Medicaid dumping in Tampa by levying a steep $260,000 fine against the Tampa nursing home. That was a strong and appropriate action, but it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared responsibility of states and the federal government. While the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid dumping is not just a Florida problem. Nursing homes which were once locally-run and family-owned are increasingly administered by multi- state, multi-facility corporations that have the power to affect seniors across the United States. Mr. President, let me also point out that the large majority of nursing homes in America treat residents well and are responsible community citizens. Our bill is simple and fair and designed to prevent future abuses by bad actors. It would prohibit current Medicaid beneficiaries or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being evicted from their homes. Adele Mongiovi was not just a ``beneficiary.'' She was also a mother and grandmother. To Ms. Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care Center of Tampa was not just an ``assisted living facility''--it was her home. Mr. President, let us provide security and peace of mind for all of our nation's seniors and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues to introduce the Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act of 1999. As you know, last year on June 9, President Clinton signed into law, the Transportation Equity Act of 1998. TEA 21 established many new programs, and a new budget treatment for highways. Throughout the debate on TEA 21, I always focused on one goal: to be able to promise my constituents that by 2003, the last year of TEA 21, our roads and bridges would be in better shape than they are today. In 1991, when ISTEA passed, I was not able to make that pledge, because I knew that the United States Department of Transportation had already estimated that the level of funding in the ISTEA bill would not close the gap between highway needs and money to meet those needs. TEA 21 was a landmark piece of legislation. TEA 21 established a new budget category for funding the highway program which calls for funding levels each year to match the intake of gas taxes the year prior. This will be the first year we test the philosophy that we can commit to spending user fees exclusively to keep up the system. Unfortunately, this amount of funding is still not enough to maintain the quality of roads in Florida or any other state. Traditional grant programs will not be able to ever meet the infrastructure needs of the nation. We must look at innovative solutions to our congestion problems. We need to use innovative methods to finance construction projects. We need to get the private sector involved in transportation improvements. The distinguished Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and I worked very hard to develop and implement an innovative financing program called transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). TIFIA was incorporated into TEA 21 and is now being implemented by the United States Department of Transportation. The program will extend federal credit to major, high cost transportation projects so as to enhance the project's ability to acquire private credit. The TIFIA program authorizes $530 million to be extended in federal credit over six years. The $530 million can be used to leverage up to $10.6 billion in private loans and lines of credit. The TIFIA program offers the sponsors of major transportation projects a means to amplify federal resources up to twenty times. The objectives of the program are to stimulate additional nonfederal investment in our Nation's infrastructure, and encourage private sector participation in transportation projects. Mr. President, I am very excited about the prospects for the TIFIA program. I believe that Congress must continue to look for new and innovative ways to meet our nation's infrastructure needs. I believe the bill we are introducing today, the Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act of 1999 (HICSA), will be another tool in the financing toolbox. HICSA creates a pilot program which allows tax-exempt financing for up to 15 transportation projects. The amount of bonds issued under the pilot will be limited to $15 billion. The projects for the pilot will be selected by the Secretary on Transportation based on numerous criteria. HICSA will encourage more private sector investment in highway and bridge construction by making lower cost, tax-exempt financing available. Under current law, other forms of public infrastructure, such as airports and seaports, are eligible for tax-exempt debt financing for projects with private capital. Highway, bridge, and tunnel projects are not eligible for this type of financing. Increasing the private sector's role in major highway projects will not only help to close the needs gap, but will also open the door for new cost saving techniques in construction and the use of new technologies. U.S. companies continually invest billions of dollars in foreign infrastructure projects, but have only participated in only a few projects in the United States. Why should American companies feel the need to invest their money overseas, when the United States is in such desperate need of funds for roads. American companies want to invest in American infrastructure. HICSA will demonstrate the benefits of private sector involvement in infrastructure projects, and will finally establish the private sector as an honored partner in building the road to the 21st century. Mr. President, I want to be able to travel to Florida and tell my constituents that in 2003, their roads and bridges will be in better shape than they are today. I believe with the combination of TEA 21 traditional grant funding, new programs like TIFIA, and clearing hurdles in the tax code with HICSA, we will be well on our way. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to pass this much needed legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier today our colleague, Senator Snowe of the State of Maine, introduced legislation, of which both I and Senator Voinovich of the State of Ohio are the cosponsors, relating to reforms in the emergency appropriations law. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the rationale for this legislation. Mr. President, we received some good news just a few months ago. We learned that after 5 years of fiscal austerity and economic growth, we had transformed a $290-billion annual 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. The discipline that helped us 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 population will be fully required if we are to meet these challenges. These deficits threaten to undo the hard work and fiscal discipline of recent years, as well as to undermine our potential for future economic growth. But that success, the success that we had in converting a $290- billion annual deficit into this year's surplus, did not give to Congress a license to return to the free-spending ways of the past. That absence of license is especially true since over 100 percent of the surplus was the result of surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. I say over 100 percent because the only surplus we had is Social Security, and a portion of that surplus is still being applied to the deficit that is being run in the general accounts, a deficit which will continue for the next 2 to 3 years. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to save this Social Security-generated surplus until Social Security's long-term solvency is assured. As you know, what we have been doing for the last 30 years is asking our grandchildren to pay our credit card bill. Now what we are saying to our grandchildren is that we are going to give them a secure Social Security system that will last for our generation, for their parents' generation, and for their generation--to the year 2075. Unfortunately, both the last legislative action of the 105th Congress and the first legislative action passed by the Senate in the 106th Congress have made a mockery of our promise to our grandchildren. Last night the Senate passed a military pay bill without simultaneously approving a way to fund it, an action that, if not corrected in the conference committee, could subtract as much as $17 billion from our children's and grandchildren's chances of having a secure Social Security system. I wish I could say that last night's vote was an aberration, nothing more than a momentary lapse of judgment, an inadvertent mistake in the haste to turn from impeachment to legislation. Sadly, I cannot make that claim. It is the second time in less than 4 months that we have proven ourselves willing to sacrifice future generations' well-being on the altar of immediate expediency. In the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, mid-October 1998, we passed a $532-billion omnibus appropriations bill. Included in that $532 billion was $21.4 billion in so-called emergency spending. Since that $21.4 billion could be approved without having to find an offsetting funding source, those $21.4 billion came directly out of the surplus. Some of you who might have been making speeches to the effect that we were going to have an $80-billion surplus at the end of the last fiscal year therefore had to strike out ``80'' and insert ``59'' as the amount of surplus we would have, because that was the figure that remained after we had paid out of the Social Security surplus for $21.4 billion in emergencies. That action would have been possibly more palatable had all of that $21.4 billion been allocated to true emergencies, to those kinds of incidents which in the past Congress has recognized as being appropriate to not require an offset in spending or increase in revenue. While some of the $21.4 billion was used to fund what have traditionally been accepted as emergencies, defined as necessary expenditures for sudden, urgent, or unforeseen temporary needs, much of the $21.4 billion was not. Let me give some examples. The Y2K computer problem, the problem that at the turn of the millennium our computers might be rendered inoperative because of the failure to account for the new century, received $3.35 billion of the $21.4 billion. It is hard to argue that it took us until October of 1998, and then under urgent duress circumstances, to wake up to the fact that the millennium was coming and that there might be a problem with our computers. In fact, here in the Senate, our colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the executive branch, as well as in the private sector community and State and local governments, had been aware of and working on this problem long before October of 1998. Another smaller example of a nonemergency emergency was $100 million that was appropriated for a new visitors center here at the Capitol. A new visitors center has been under consideration for a decade or more-- hardly an emergency that just came to our attention in October of 1998. These expenditures might have been desirable, might have been appropriate, but to label them ``emergency,'' and therefore remove them from the fiscal discipline requiring offsetting spending or additional revenue to support them, threatens to undermine the safeguards that we have built in to protect our Social Security surplus. This budgetary sleight-of-hand was also used to increase funding for projects that had already been funded through the traditional appropriations process. For example, after previously allocating $270.5 billion to the Department of Defense in the emergency appropriations provision without any offsetting spending reductions or revenue increases, Congress provided an additional $8.3 billion in ``emergency'' defense spending in the omnibus appropriations bill. That is not all. Because these pseudoemergency spending provisions were included in an omnibus appropriations conference report--that is, a bill that was the result of reconciliation of differences between the Senate and the House--then, under the normal rules governing a conference report, that legislation was not subject to amendment. Therefore, there could be no motion made that would have removed, reduced, or otherwise modified the provisions that were labeled as ``emergency appropriations.'' Members of the Congress were left with an unpalatable choice: Shut down the Government in mid-October of 1998 by failure to pass this significant appropriations bill that covered approximately one-third of the Federal budget, or steal from our children's and grandchildren's Social Security surplus. Mr. President, that is not a choice; that is a national disgrace. It is vital that we institute an emergency spending process that responds expeditiously to true emergencies without maintaining this open door to abuse. We must establish procedural safeguards to deter future Congresses from misusing the emergency spending procedures. We should not attach, as an example, any emergency spending to nonemergency legislation. We should not designate emergency spending measures that do not meet our own definition of an emergency. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I am pleased to join with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine in introducing legislation that will protect our newly won budget surplus from false emergency budgetary alarms. Senators Snowe, Voinovich and I are introducing the Surplus Protection Act to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This will limit consideration of nonemergency matters in emergency legislation. Specifically, we propose the following three reforms: First, to create a point of order, similar to the Byrd rule which currently exists, that prevents nonemergency 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, we would require a 60-vote supermajority 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 certain that they do, in fact, represent a true emergency, as that term has been defined. 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 nonemergency items from ever being included in emergency legislation by providing a forum in which they can be appropriately challenged on the Senate floor. Even if passed, our legislation would not be the total cure for Congress' apparent 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. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. We have a challenge before us in the next few weeks to recoup to the Social Security surplus those funds that were improvidently labeled as emergency spending and thus became the means by which the Social Security surplus was raided last October. We will face that challenge when we deal with the budget resolution and subsequent appropriations bills. The day after the passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Act on October 21, 1998, I wrote the President and asked that the Federal Government commit itself to restoring funding for the nontraditional ``emergency'' items which were included in that omnibus legislation. I must state with disappointment that I have not yet received 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. On January 18, 1999, Roll Call published an opinion piece which I had written in which I asked the President to address this subject in his State of the Union Address. Mr. President, he did not. Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution says that the Congress need not wait for the President. We can and must take 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. We must also realistically fund existing emergency accounts. While the Congress cannot anticipate the precise nature or cost of future emergencies, we do know that emergencies will occur. For instance, Congress prospectively budgets an annual amount not to exceed $320 million in emergency funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief fund. That is the good news. Now the bad news. Over the past 12 years, the average emergency outlays from the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief fund have exceeded by $1.7 billion per year. What we have consistently done is underfund the account based on 12 years of experience, so that we have mandated that we are going to have unfunded emergencies. It would be as if homeowners consistently underinsured their homes or the contents of their homes, knowing that when the disaster struck, they were not going to have sufficient funds to rebuild or to recoup their losses. If we are to save the surplus of Social Security, Congress should stop systematically underfunding the emergency accounts and, thus, shifting anticipated emergency spending off budget. We should require emergency accounts to be funded through the normal appropriations process based on our historical experience. Mr. President, I join Senator Snowe in the hopes that our colleagues will support this important legislation. It is vital that we assure 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 future for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues to introduce the Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act of 1999. As you know, last year on June 9, President Clinton signed into law, the Transportation Equity Act of 1998. TEA 21 established many new programs, and a new budget treatment for highways. Throughout the debate on TEA 21, I always focused on one goal: to be able to promise my constituents that by 2003, the last year of TEA 21, our roads and bridges would be in better shape than they are today. In 1991, when ISTEA passed, I was not able to make that pledge, because I knew that the United States Department of Transportation had already estimated that the level of funding in the ISTEA bill would not close the gap between highway needs and money to meet those needs. TEA 21 was a landmark piece of legislation. TEA 21 established a new budget category for funding the highway program which calls for funding levels each year to match the intake of gas taxes the year prior. This will be the first year we test the philosophy that we can commit to spending user fees exclusively to keep up the system. Unfortunately, this amount of funding is still not enough to maintain the quality of roads in Florida or any other state. Traditional grant programs will not be able to ever meet the infrastructure needs of the nation. We must look at innovative solutions to our congestion problems. We need to use innovative methods to finance construction projects. We need to get the private sector involved in transportation improvements. The distinguished Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and I worked very hard to develop and implement an innovative financing program called transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). TIFIA was incorporated into TEA 21 and is now being implemented by the United States Department of Transportation. The program will extend federal credit to major, high cost transportation projects so as to enhance the project's ability to acquire private credit. The TIFIA program authorizes $530 million to be extended in federal credit over six years. The $530 million can be used to leverage up to $10.6 billion in private loans and lines of credit. The TIFIA program offers the sponsors of major transportation projects a means to amplify federal resources up to twenty times. The objectives of the program are to stimulate additional nonfederal investment in our Nation's infrastructure, and encourage private sector participation in transportation projects. Mr. President, I am very excited about the prospects for the TIFIA program. I believe that Congress must continue to look for new and innovative ways to meet our nation's infrastructure needs. I believe the bill we are introducing today, the Highway Innovation and Cost Savings Act of 1999 (HICSA), will be another tool in the financing toolbox. HICSA creates a pilot program which allows tax-exempt financing for up to 15 transportation projects. The amount of bonds issued under the pilot will be limited to $15 billion. The projects for the pilot will be selected by the Secretary on Transportation based on numerous criteria. HICSA will encourage more private sector investment in highway and bridge construction by making lower cost, tax-exempt financing available. Under current law, other forms of public infrastructure, such as airports and seaports, are eligible for tax-exempt debt financing for projects with private capital. Highway, bridge, and tunnel projects are not eligible for this type of financing. Increasing the private sector's role in major highway projects will not only help to close the needs gap, but will also open the door for new cost saving techniques in construction and the use of new technologies. U.S. companies continually invest billions of dollars in foreign infrastructure projects, but have only participated in only a few projects in the United States. Why should American companies feel the need to invest their money overseas, when the United States is in such desperate need of funds for roads. American companies want to invest in American infrastructure. HICSA will demonstrate the benefits of private sector involvement in infrastructure projects, and will finally establish the private sector as an honored partner in building the road to the 21st century. Mr. President, I want to be able to travel to Florida and tell my constituents that in 2003, their roads and bridges will be in better shape than they are today. I believe with the combination of TEA 21 traditional grant funding, new programs like TIFIA, and clearing hurdles in the tax code with HICSA, we will be well on our way. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to pass this much needed legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier today our colleague, Senator Snowe of the State of Maine, introduced legislation, of which both I and Senator Voinovich of the State of Ohio are the cosponsors, relating to reforms in the emergency appropriations law. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the rationale for this legislation. Mr. President, we received some good news just a few months ago. We learned that after 5 years of fiscal austerity and economic growth, we had transformed a $290-billion annual 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. The discipline that helped us 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 population will be fully required if we are to meet these challenges. These deficits threaten to undo the hard work and fiscal discipline of recent years, as well as to undermine our potential for future economic growth. But that success, the success that we had in converting a $290- billion annual deficit into this year's surplus, did not give to Congress a license to return to the free-spending ways of the past. That absence of license is especially true since over 100 percent of the surplus was the result of surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. I say over 100 percent because the only surplus we had is Social Security, and a portion of that surplus is still being applied to the deficit that is being run in the general accounts, a deficit which will continue for the next 2 to 3 years. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to save this Social Security-generated surplus until Social Security's long-term solvency is assured. As you know, what we have been doing for the last 30 years is asking our grandchildren to pay our credit card bill. Now what we are saying to our grandchildren is that we are going to give them a secure Social Security system that will last for our generation, for their parents' generation, and for their generation--to the year 2075. Unfortunately, both the last legislative action of the 105th Congress and the first legislative action passed by the Senate in the 106th Congress have made a mockery of our promise to our grandchildren. Last night the Senate passed a military pay bill without simultaneously approving a way to fund it, an action that, if not corrected in the conference committee, could subtract as much as $17 billion from our children's and grandchildren's chances of having a secure Social Security system. I wish I could say that last night's vote was an aberration, nothing more than a momentary lapse of judgment, an inadvertent mistake in the haste to turn from impeachment to legislation. Sadly, I cannot make that claim. It is the second time in less than 4 months that we have proven ourselves willing to sacrifice future generations' well-being on the altar of immediate expediency. In the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, mid-October 1998, we passed a $532-billion omnibus appropriations bill. Included in that $532 billion was $21.4 billion in so-called emergency spending. Since that $21.4 billion could be approved without having to find an offsetting funding source, those $21.4 billion came directly out of the surplus. Some of you who might have been making speeches to the effect that we were going to have an $80-billion surplus at the end of the last fiscal year therefore had to strike out ``80'' and insert ``59'' as the amount of surplus we would have, because that was the figure that remained after we had paid out of the Social Security surplus for $21.4 billion in emergencies. That action would have been possibly more palatable had all of that $21.4 billion been allocated to true emergencies, to those kinds of incidents which in the past Congress has recognized as being appropriate to not require an offset in spending or increase in revenue. While some of the $21.4 billion was used to fund what have traditionally been accepted as emergencies, defined as necessary expenditures for sudden, urgent, or unforeseen temporary needs, much of the $21.4 billion was not. Let me give some examples. The Y2K computer problem, the problem that at the turn of the millennium our computers might be rendered inoperative because of the failure to account for the new century, received $3.35 billion of the $21.4 billion. It is hard to argue that it took us until October of 1998, and then under urgent duress circumstances, to wake up to the fact that the millennium was coming and that there might be a problem with our computers. In fact, here in the Senate, our colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the executive branch, as well as in the private sector community and State and local governments, had been aware of and working on this problem long before October of 1998. Another smaller example of a nonemergency emergency was $100 million that was appropriated for a new visitors center here at the Capitol. A new visitors center has been under consideration for a decade or more-- hardly an emergency that just came to our attention in October of 1998. These expenditures might have been desirable, might have been appropriate, but to label them ``emergency,'' and therefore remove them from the fiscal discipline requiring offsetting spending or additional revenue to support them, threatens to undermine the safeguards that we have built in to protect our Social Security surplus. This budgetary sleight-of-hand was also used to increase funding for projects that had already been funded through the traditional appropriations process. For example, after previously allocating $270.5 billion to the Department of Defense in the emergency appropriations provision without any offsetting spending reductions or revenue increases, Congress provided an additional $8.3 billion in ``emergency'' defense spending in the omnibus appropriations bill. That is not all. Because these pseudoemergency spending provisions were included in an omnibus appropriations conference report--that is, a bill that was the result of reconciliation of differences between the Senate and the House--then, under the normal rules governing a conference report, that legislation was not subject to amendment. Therefore, there could be no motion made that would have removed, reduced, or otherwise modified the provisions that were labeled as ``emergency appropriations.'' Members of the Congress were left with an unpalatable choice: Shut down the Government in mid-October of 1998 by failure to pass this significant appropriations bill that covered approximately one-third of the Federal budget, or steal from our children's and grandchildren's Social Security surplus. Mr. President, that is not a choice; that is a national disgrace. It is vital that we institute an emergency spending process that responds expeditiously to true emergencies without maintaining this open door to abuse. We must establish procedural safeguards to deter future Congresses from misusing the emergency spending procedures. We should not attach, as an example, any emergency spending to nonemergency legislation. We should not designate emergency spending measures that do not meet our own definition of an emergency. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I am pleased to join with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine in introducing legislation that will protect our newly won budget surplus from false emergency budgetary alarms. Senators Snowe, Voinovich and I are introducing the Surplus Protection Act to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This will limit consideration of nonemergency matters in emergency legislation. Specifically, we propose the following three reforms: First, to create a point of order, similar to the Byrd rule which currently exists, that prevents nonemergency 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, we would require a 60-vote supermajority 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 certain that they do, in fact, represent a true emergency, as that term has been defined. 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 nonemergency items from ever being included in emergency legislation by providing a forum in which they can be appropriately challenged on the Senate floor. Even if passed, our legislation would not be the total cure for Congress' apparent 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. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. We have a challenge before us in the next few weeks to recoup to the Social Security surplus those funds that were improvidently labeled as emergency spending and thus became the means by which the Social Security surplus was raided last October. We will face that challenge when we deal with the budget resolution and subsequent appropriations bills. The day after the passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Act on October 21, 1998, I wrote the President and asked that the Federal Government commit itself to restoring funding for the nontraditional ``emergency'' items which were included in that omnibus legislation. I must state with disappointment that I have not yet received 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. On January 18, 1999, Roll Call published an opinion piece which I had written in which I asked the President to address this subject in his State of the Union Address. Mr. President, he did not. Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution says that the Congress need not wait for the President. We can and must take 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. We must also realistically fund existing emergency accounts. While the Congress cannot anticipate the precise nature or cost of future emergencies, we do know that emergencies will occur. For instance, Congress prospectively budgets an annual amount not to exceed $320 million in emergency funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief fund. That is the good news. Now the bad news. Over the past 12 years, the average emergency outlays from the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief fund have exceeded by $1.7 billion per year. What we have consistently done is underfund the account based on 12 years of experience, so that we have mandated that we are going to have unfunded emergencies. It would be as if homeowners consistently underinsured their homes or the contents of their homes, knowing that when the disaster struck, they were not going to have sufficient funds to rebuild or to recoup their losses. If we are to save the surplus of Social Security, Congress should stop systematically underfunding the emergency accounts and, thus, shifting anticipated emergency spending off budget. We should require emergency accounts to be funded through the normal appropriations process based on our historical experience. Mr. President, I join Senator Snowe in the hopes that our colleagues will support this important legislation. It is vital that we assure 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 future for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 483 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Colton Campbell, Mr. Bryan Giddings, Ms. Lisa Page, and Ms. Marilyn Lewis of my staff be afforded the privilege of the floor during the duration of my remarks.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are about to take our first legislative action of the 106th Congress. Many of us who ran for election or reelection last November said that one of our greatest sources of pride was that after 30 years of deficits and a Federal debt which had reached close to $6 trillion, that we had finally exercised the fiscal discipline to achieve a balanced Federal budget. What are we about to do with the first vote of this 106th Congress? We are about to pass a bill which will have an unfunded liability of $16.5 billion. That is $16.5 billion not subject to appropriations. That is $16.5 billion of direct authorized spending in this legislation plus revenue reductions that are incident to this legislation. Mr. President, that is not the message that we want to send to the American people--that we are going to add a further indebtedness to the Federal Government, that we are going to start down the slippery slope to more deficits and more additions to our national debt. We do not want to tell our service men and women that we have given them these benefits, which we need to do, but that we were unwilling to pay for them, so that for every dollar we give them, 34 cents is unfunded. That is not fair either to the taxpayers or to the service men and women who we are trying to convince that we are going to substantially improve their service conditions so that they will join up and stay and serve the Nation. Mr. President, what I have proposed is a simple proposition. If we are going to make this offer to our service personnel, let's pay for it. I have proposed a payment of four items. Three are tax measures which have been passed by this Congress and which have lapsed. This would renew those measures. Two of them relate to the Superfund Program, one of them to the oilspill liability, the fourth is a measure which was included in a bill that Senator Coverdell brought to us last year, which passed the Senate, which makes a change in the carry-over provision for foreign tax credit. Those four items together will raise the funds necessary to convert this blank check into a fully funded check, be responsible to the American taxpayers, to the service men and women and, particularly, be responsible to the American people who are looking to us to see if we can maintain the fiscal discipline that we so recently acquired. This is a test of this Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the question I asked was, would a constitutional point of order be available against the bill because of provisions which effected revenue?