Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Matt Barry of our staff be given floor privileges for the remainder of the consideration of this issue during this session of the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the federal government is attempting to collect almost $19 billion over 5 years, and, presumably almost $100 billion over the 25 year settlement agreement period, based on a little known provision in Medicaid which was never intended to apply to a lawsuit of this magnitude or character. The regulations interpreting the Statutory language of 1903(D) read as follows: Subpart F--Refunding of Federal Share of Medicaid Overpayments to Providers This Subpart Implements Section 1903(d)(2) (C) and (D) of the Act, which provides that a State has 60 days from discovery of an overpayment for Medicaid services to recover or attempt to recover the overpayment from the provider. The regulation then goes on to define ``overpayment'': Overpayment means the amount paid by a Medicaid agency to a provider which is in excess of the amount that is allowable for services furnished under section 1902 of the act. Mr. President, applying the provisions of this statute which was designed to collect overpayments paid by a Medicaid State agency to a provider, to attempt to apply this provision to the State tobacco lawsuits is absurd. This provision was intended and has been used to apply to billing errors made by providers. As an example, if a State finds that a provider has over billed Medicaid, the State collects the overpayment, then remits the commensurate share back to the federal government. Essentially, the federal government is stating that the revenues from the lawsuits should be interpreted as ``overpayments'' made to medical providers by state Medicaid agencies--that the services rendered by these providers to Medicaid beneficiaries should not have been rendered under the statute. This logic is twisted and absurd. The State lawsuits were not premised on a technical collections process--providers overbilling Medicaid. Rather, they were premised on the fact that the tobacco industry defrauded the taxpayer, violated the State civil racketeering statutes, and subjected the taxpayers to enormous smoking-related illness costs. Further, as an example, Mr. President, the suit of the State of Iowa, which was premised on Medicaid, was thrown out of court, but Iowa is still 1 of the 46 States which will receive their share of the proceeds under the nationwide settlement. How could the Federal Government lay any claim to Iowa's proceeds based on the overpayment provision in Medicaid since the court had specifically thrown out its suit based on Medicaid? The answer is, it cannot. The legislation that Senator Hutchison and my colleagues are introducing today is simple. It clarifies that the overpayment provision does not apply to either the comprehensive settlement agreed to in November of 1998, nor does it apply to any of the State settlements agreed to prior to the comprehensive settlement. Here is what the bill will do. It will prevent the Federal Government from stifling important bipartisan public health initiatives which will be paid for through the settlements. In my State of Florida, for instance, our former colleague and good friend, Democratic Governor Lawton Chiles, provided health insurance to over 250,000 previously uninsured poor children. Just 2 weeks ago, Florida's new Governor, Republican Jeb Bush, announced the establishment of a $2 billion endowment fund which will be named in honor of Governor Chiles. This fund will assure that the tobacco funds will be used exclusively for children's health, child welfare, and seniors' health programs. Mr. President, as you know, Florida is not unique. Other States will be just as innovative and be held to just as high standards of accountability by their citizens for the use of these tobacco settlement funds. It is important that States be given the green light to move forward on important public health initiatives and to do so as soon as possible. If we do not pass this legislation, funds that could otherwise be spent on improving America's health will be tied up in litigation between States and the Federal Government for the foreseeable future. So I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort, to support this legislation, and I urge that it be adopted by this Senate and by the Congress and signed by the President of the United States at the earliest possible date. Exhibit 1 Center for Medicaid and State Operations, November 3, 1997. Dear State Medicaid Director: A number of States have settled suits against one or more tobacco companies to recoup costs incurred in treating tobacco-related illnesses. This letter describes the proper accounting and reporting for Federal Medicaid purposes of amounts received from such settlements that are subject to Section 1903(d) of the Social Security Act. As described in the statute, States must allocate from the amount of any Medicaid-related expenditure recovery ``the pro-rata share to which the United States (Federal government) is equitably entitled.'' As with any recovery related to a Medicaid expenditure, payments received should be reported on the Quarterly Statement of Expenditures for the Medicaid Assistance Program (HCFA-64) for the quarter in which they are received. Specifically, these receipts should be reported on the Form HCFA-64 Summary Sheet, Line 9E. This line is reserved for special collections. The Federal share should be calculated using the current Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage. Please note that settlement payments represent a credit applicable to the Medicaid program whether or not the monies are received directly by the State Medicaid agency. States that have previously reported receipts from tobacco litigation settlements must continue to report settlement payments as they are received. State administrative costs incurred in pursuit of Medicaid cost recoveries from tobacco firms qualify for the normal 50 percent Federal financial participation (FFP). They should be reported on the Form HCFA-64.10, Line 14 (Other Financial Participation). Only Medicaid-related expenditure recoveries are subject to the Federal share requirement. To the extent that some non- Medicaid expenditures and/or recoveries were also included in the underlying lawsuits, HCFA will accept a justifiable allocation reflecting the Medicaid portion of the recovery, as long as the State provides necessary documentation to support a proposed allocation. Under current law, tobacco settlement recoveries must be treated like any other Medicaid recoveries. We recognize that Congress will consider the treatment of tobacco settlements in the context of any comprehensive tobacco legislation next year. Given the States' role in initiating tobacco lawsuits and in financing Medicaid programs, States will, of course, have an important voice in the development of such legislation, including the allocation of any resulting revenues. The Administration will work closely with States during this legislative process as these issues are decided. If you would like to discuss the appropriate reporting of recoveries with HCFA, please call David McNally of my staff at (410) 786-3292 to arrange for a meeting or conversation. We look forward to providing any assistance needed in meeting a State's Medicaid obligation. Sincerely, Sally K. Richardson, Director.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on Tuesday of this week, Senator Grassley and I introduced S. 36, The American Worker Long Term Care Affordability Act of 1999, a bill creating a model long-term care insurance program for federal employees. Today, I would like to comment on a related long term care bill also introduced on Tuesday by Senator Grassley and myself. S. 35, The Long Term Care Affordability and Availability Act of 1999, would give all Americans a tax deduction for the premiums they pay for long term care insurance. The cost of long term care has risen to astonishing levels in recent years. In 1995, it averaged $37,000 per year. What this means is that a chronic illness requiring long term care can represent a financial catastrophe for retired Americans and their families. A retired couple might have a pension and basic health care, but the couple is not secure in retirement so long as their financial resources can be depleted by long term care bills. Many Americans think Medicare covers the cost of long term care. In fact, it covers only the first 100 days of care following a hospital stay. Yet the average nursing home stay is 2.5 years. Medicaid, unlike Medicare, does cover long term care--but only for beneficiaries who use up their life savings and income first. Medicaid, after all, is a program for the poor, and long term care beneficiaries must become impoverished to qualify. Furthermore, beneficiaries who rely on Medicaid must use providers that are chosen for them--not providers of their own choice. Even with these restrictions, Medicaid currently pays more than $30 billion per year for nursing home care. The budgetary challenges provided by Medicare and Medicaid are on course to become ever more acute in coming years, as the baby boom generation ages. By 2030, as the number of people over 65 doubles, fully 32 states will have the demographics that Florida has today. The fastest growing segment of the population will be those over 85 with an expected 143% increase by 2030. People over 85 are at least 5 times more likely to reside in a nursing home than people who are 65. In real terms, nursing home expenditures are expected to quadruple in the next three decades. Mr. President, given the accelerating cost of long term care and the demographic pressures on Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlement programs, Congress started several years ago to provide incentives for people to plan ahead for their own needs. The way most Americans plan ahead for long term care is by purchasing long term care insurance. With insurance, people can be confident that they won't have to impoverish themselves to deal with a chronic illness. They won't have to fall back on the Medicaid program or family members. In the Kennedy-Kassenbaum health reform legislation in 1996, Congress permitted the deduction of premiums on long term care insurance in the same manner as health expenses. The trouble is that few people--other than the self-employed--can deduct health expenses since the tax code allows only the portion of health expenses over 7.5% of income to be deducted, and then only as an itemized deduction. Thus, a typical employee planning ahead for retirement cannot purchase long term care insurance on a tax deductible basis. The bill we are introducing today would improve on Kennedy-Kassenbaum by allowing Americans to deduct long term care insurance premiums regardless of whether or not they are self-employed or whether they itemize deductions or have any other health expense. Effectively, the bill would put long term care insurance on a par with pensions. Just as everyone can save for a pension on a tax deductible basis, everyone should be able to purchase long term care insurance in the same fashion. A better deduction for long term care insurance premiums could also help us by encouraging younger Americans to purchase insurance now, when the coverage is readily affordable. For example, a quality long term care insurance policy purchased at age forty, can cost less than $50 per month. Mr. President, every person who is covered by long term care insurance is one fewer potential Medicaid claimant. A recent study by the American Council for Life Insurance indicates that long term care insurance has the potential to reduce future out of pocket expenditures on long term care by 40 percent and future Medicaid long term care expenditures by more than 20%. In other words, long term care insurance has the capacity both to protect seniors from financial catastrophe, and to help protect entitlement programs from long term insolvency. Mr. President, I also want to applaud the President's long term care initiative, which he announced two weeks ago. In proposing a tax credit for individuals who provide long term care to dependents, President Clinton also pledged to increase efforts to educate Americans about the importance of long term care. Both of these proposals are consistent with the legislative effort that Senator Grassley and I are undertaking, and I look forward to working with the White House on this important issue.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since my days as Governor of the State of Florida, I have been a strong advocate of the protection and restoration of the Florida Everglades, the largest wetland and subtropical wilderness in the United States. This legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to review the suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System of the Everglades expansion area, a designation that will protect and preserve this area for the use of present and future generations. This action will be an important step towards maintaining the natural habitat of such endangered species as the Florida panther, the snail kite, and the cape sable seaside sparrow, as well as sustaining uninterupted water flow to the Everglades' aquifers, the main water source for the majority of the rapidly growing state of Florida. Over the last 100 years, this ecosystem has been altered by man to provide for development, to manage water for irrigation, and to provide flood control in times of hurricanes. The review of this land for potential as wilderness may lead to greater future protection of the Everglades ecosystem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing legislation that will allow the Federal Government to be a role model in helping Americans prepare for retirement security. The issue is long term care insurance. Several key facts highlights the importance of long term care insurance. It is estimated that the majority of women and one-third of men who reach the age of 60 will need nursing home care before the end of life. Many of the baby boom generation first face this issue when they deal with their aging parents' needs. Long term care is one of the most important retirement security issues facing us today. According to a 1997 survey sponsored by the National Council on the Aging, more Americans (69 percent) were worried about how to pay for long term care than were worried about how they would pay for their retirement (56 percent). This level of concern was true for all age groups and income levels among those surveyed. Their concerns are well-founded. In 1995 the average cost of nursing home care in the United States was $37,000 per year. In some urban areas of the country, that cost can reach $70,000 per year. Medicare provides short-term care coverage, but the average nursing home stay is two and one-half years. In fact, Medicare pays for only five percent of national nursing home costs. Not all long term care occurs in nursing homes--85 percent of nursing home care is nonskilled care. Again, Medicare does not cover non- skilled care, so all of these costs must be covered by the patient and his or her family members. Medicaid will provide nursing home and some nonskilled care coverage, but an individual must be extremely low income, or become low income, to qualify for Medicaid. This program currently pays for over half of nursing home expenses in the United States. But who wants to see their lifetime savings, and their children's inheritance, wiped out to pay for the cost of a catastrophic long term illness? The end of life is not a pleasant subject for any family to discuss. But the emotional decisions involved are made easier by planning ahead and investing in long term care insurance. That kind of forethought provides needed options at a very vulnerable time. Although many companies are considering offering this insurance to their employees, as of 1996 only 13.2 percent of long-term care plans were employer-sponsored. Today, Senator Grassley and I are moving the Federal Government into a leadership role by creating a model long term care insurance program for Federal employees. We hope that our legislation will inspire private companies to increase the long term care options available to their employees. Under our plan, private companies will have the opportunity to compete to provide long term care insurance to Federal employees. This does not mean a high cost to taxpayers; premiums will be fully paid by federal employees. However, by pooling the numbers of workers in the Federal Government, our plan will encourage reduced group rates. Only plans qualified under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 may offer this insurance to Federal workers through our legislation. Beyond that, we will let the marketplace determine the cost and services of plans available for purchase. Flexibility is important in this relatively young industry as insurance companies are still in the process of determining how to most effectively provide this product. Competition among the various carriers, group discounts and volume of sales will keep these premiums affordable. Eleven million Americans, including Federal employees and retirees, their spouses, parents, and in-laws would be eligible for long term care insurance under our proposal. This bill is just a first step, but an important one. I ask for your support as we continue to improve retirement security for all Americans.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Sessions and other colleagues in launching an initiative to increase Americans' access to college education. Today, we are introducing the Collegiate Learning and Student Savings Act. This bill would extend tax-free treatment to all state sponsored prepaid tuition plans and state savings plans in the year 2000. This legislation would also give prepaid tuition plans established by private colleges and universities tax-deferred treatment in 2000, and tax-exempt status by 2004. Prepaid college tuition and savings programs have flourished at the state level in the face of spiraling college costs. According to the College Board, between 1980 and 1997, tuition at public colleges increased by 107 percent, while the median income increased just 12 percent. The cause of this dramatic increase in tuition is the subject of significant debate. But whether these increases are attributable to increased costs to the universities, reductions in state funding for public universities, or the increased value of a college degree, the fact remains that financing a college education has become increasingly difficult. Although the federal government has increased its aid to college students over the years, it is the states who have engineered innovative ways to help its families afford college. Michigan implemented the first prepaid tuition plan in 1986. Florida followed in 1988. today 43 states have either implemented or are in the process of implementing prepaid tuition plans or state savings plans. Mr. President, prepaid college tuition plans allow parents to pay prospectively for their children's higher education at participating universities. States pool these funds and invest them in a manner that will match or exceed the pace of educational inflation. This ``locks in'' current tuition and guarantees financial access to a future college education. Congress has already acted to ensure that tax on distributions from state sponsored programs are tax-deferred. Senator Sessions and I believe the 106th Congress must move to make state programs 100 percent tax free. Students should be able to enroll in college without fear of then having to pay taxes on the money accrued. The legislation would extend the same treatment to private college prepaid programs in 2004. We believe that these programs should be tax free for numerous reasons. First, for most families, they have in essence purchased a service to be provided in the future. The accounts are not liquid. The funds are transferred from the state directly to the college or university. Under current policy, the student is required to find other means of generating the funds to pay the tax. Second, Congress should make these programs tax free in order to encourage savings and college attendance. Perhaps most importantly, prepaid tuition and savings programs help middle income families afford a college education. Florida's experience shows that it is not higher income families who take most advantage of these plans. It is middle income families who want the discipline of monthly payments. They know that they would have a difficult time coming up with funds necessary to pay for college if they waited until their child enrolled. In Florida, more than 70 percent of participants in the state tuition program have family incomes of less than $50,000. I am pleased to have this opportunity to join my colleagues in support of good tax policies which enhance our higher education goals. Prepaid tuition plans deserve our support through enactment of legislation that would make them tax-free for American families and students.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Sessions and other colleagues in launching an initiative to increase Americans' access to college education. Today, we are introducing the Collegiate Learning and Student Savings Act. This bill would extend tax-free treatment to all state sponsored prepaid tuition plans and state savings plans in the year 2000. This legislation would also give prepaid tuition plans established by private colleges and universities tax-deferred treatment in 2000, and tax-exempt status by 2004. Prepaid college tuition and savings programs have flourished at the state level in the face of spiraling college costs. According to the College Board, between 1980 and 1997, tuition at public colleges increased by 107 percent, while the median income increased just 12 percent. The cause of this dramatic increase in tuition is the subject of significant debate. But whether these increases are attributable to increased costs to the universities, reductions in state funding for public universities, or the increased value of a college degree, the fact remains that financing a college education has become increasingly difficult. Although the federal government has increased its aid to college students over the years, it is the states who have engineered innovative ways to help its families afford college. Michigan implemented the first prepaid tuition plan in 1986. Florida followed in 1988. today 43 states have either implemented or are in the process of implementing prepaid tuition plans or state savings plans. Mr. President, prepaid college tuition plans allow parents to pay prospectively for their children's higher education at participating universities. States pool these funds and invest them in a manner that will match or exceed the pace of educational inflation. This ``locks in'' current tuition and guarantees financial access to a future college education. Congress has already acted to ensure that tax on distributions from state sponsored programs are tax-deferred. Senator Sessions and I believe the 106th Congress must move to make state programs 100 percent tax free. Students should be able to enroll in college without fear of then having to pay taxes on the money accrued. The legislation would extend the same treatment to private college prepaid programs in 2004. We believe that these programs should be tax free for numerous reasons. First, for most families, they have in essence purchased a service to be provided in the future. The accounts are not liquid. The funds are transferred from the state directly to the college or university. Under current policy, the student is required to find other means of generating the funds to pay the tax. Second, Congress should make these programs tax free in order to encourage savings and college attendance. Perhaps most importantly, prepaid tuition and savings programs help middle income families afford a college education. Florida's experience shows that it is not higher income families who take most advantage of these plans. It is middle income families who want the discipline of monthly payments. They know that they would have a difficult time coming up with funds necessary to pay for college if they waited until their child enrolled. In Florida, more than 70 percent of participants in the state tuition program have family incomes of less than $50,000. I am pleased to have this opportunity to join my colleagues in support of good tax policies which enhance our higher education goals. Prepaid tuition plans deserve our support through enactment of legislation that would make them tax-free for American families and students.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. There are two principle reasons I support extension of Section 29 and 45. First, in a period where America is continuing to increase its dependence on foreign oil, we need to develop alternative fuel technologies to prepare for the day when foreign supply of oil is reduced. These tax credits have spurred the production of fuel from sources as diverse as biomass, coal, and wind. America will desperately need fuel from these domestic sources when foreign producers reduce imports. Second, the alternative fuels that earn these tax credits are clean fuels. For example, the capture and reuse of landfill methane prevents the methane from escaping into the atmosphere. I will support my colleagues in an effort next year to extend these provisions.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, because of a tremendous bipartisan effort, and the support of many of our nation's local community leaders, a step toward justice and fairness for Haitian refugees will be taken by this Congress. The effort began on November 11, 1997, and will culminate in the passage of this omnibus budget bill. My colleagues, both in the Senate and the House deserve many thanks: Senator Connie Mack, Senator Kennedy, Senator Abraham, Representatives Meek, Conyers, Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen. The support of the White House was instrumental in reaching the final agreement to include this legislation in the omnibus appropriations bill. In both chambers, with both parties, the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act gained the support needed for passage. In so many instances, this legislation meant life or death for the refugees who came here seeking safety from persecution. In the field hearing, held in Miami last December, Amnesty International stated unequivocally that the safety of refugees who were deported to Haiti could not be guaranteed. I was so appreciative, not only of the bipartisan support that this legislation received, but of support that crossed national lines as well. From the beginning, the Hispanic community: Fraternidad Nicauaguense, the Bloque de Apoyo a la Unidad Nicaraguense, Unidad Hondurena, the Cuban-American community, and others have joined together to help their Haitian brethren achieve immigration fairness. The measure of this legislation's impact can best be seen through the eyes of those individuals who were most impacted by the previous state of affairs. I had the opportunity, the pleasure, to meet many of them at our hearing in Miami. Every audience member was moved by their testimony, by the personal accounts of their experiences in Haiti, and the brutality that they fled. I had the opportunity to meet others in this category on my trips to Haiti, and my visits to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Even in these harsh conditions, the spirit and determination of these brave individuals was remarkable, struggling to liberate themselves and their families from persecution and brutality. They are following in the tradition of fighters for freedom and justice worldwide. Our nation has, since its foundation, served as a refuge of those seeking justice and safety. The evolution of our country's current refugee policy is in many ways to ensure that we avoid situations, such as the one that developed, close to my home state, in the time leading up to World War II. The vessel St. Louis moored within sight of the city of Miami for several days, filled with passengers of the Jewish faith, fleeing the violence in Europe. Our country refused them safety. The passengers returned to Europe, many of them to their certain death. Since then, beginning with specific refugee legislation in the decades after the war and developing into the Refugee Act of 1980, the United States of America has offered freedom and sanctuary to those fleeing persecution, brutality, and human rights abuses. The bipartisan effort that led to the passage of the Haitian Immigration Fairness Act ensures that we maintain this valued tradition in the United States. We will treat Haitian national refugees in the same manner as we have treated similarly situated individuals over the last decades. In relation to one aspect of the legislation, I wanted to clarify the intent of the section dealing with stays of deportation. The intent of this legislation is that the INS would not seek to remove a qualified spouse or the child of a qualified alien who has applied for relief under this legislation, and received a stay of deportation or removal. Again, many of my colleagues in the Senate and the House deserve thanks for their tremendous support on this effort. It will make a difference in the lives of many individuals who are a part of our vibrant South Florida community. They will no longer be in immigration limbo, and can continue to build their part of the American dream.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I join my colleague from Florida in making this inquiry. Since enactment of the provision by the Senate, I have noted that a new section (d) has been added in conference, which provides that the President may waive the ``requirements'' of this section in the national security. I note that the term ``requirements'' may require clarification. As I understand the import of this language, it does not allow the President to waive the section as a whole, but only those part that relate to ``requirements'' on the Secretaries of Treasury and State. Is that the understanding of the Senator from North Carolina?

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator you are correct. I would also like to voice my concern regarding Fiscal Year 1998 funding that has not been provided by the Department of Energy to assist the State of Florida's program.

Mr. GRAHAM. This program is an excellent example of successful technology transfer from a national laboratory as well as an example of a successful public/private partnership. I understand the program is consistent with industry priorities and the goals of the Department of Energy's energy saving windows program.We hope that the Department of Energy will provide no less than $1 million of Fiscal Year 1999 funding for electrochromics to further the State of Florida's development of PECVD techniques for electrochromic technology.

Mr. GRAHAM. Electrochromic technology provides a flexible means of controlling the amount of heat and light that pass through a glass surface providing significant energy conservation opportunities. I understand the Department of Energy estimates that placing this technology on all commercial building windows in the United States would produce yearly energy savings equivalent to the amount of oil that passes through the Alaskan pipeline each year.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to salute one of Florida's most dedicated health care service providers. On October 17, 1998, the Economic Opportunity Family Health Center of Miami both honored and said farewell to their President and CEO, Ms. Jessie Trice. Ms. Trice's retirement concludes a career of more than thirty years devoted to the improvement of health care services in under privileged communities throughout both Florida and the nation. She is a true humanitarian, and has been locally and nationally recognized for her tireless advocacy on behalf of the affordable and accessible services primary care centers provide vulnerable populations. Because of her efforts, these centers have garnered support at all levels of government, and they remain a vitally important force in the health care continuum of needy communities. Jessie Trice is both a community leader and policy maker. Her distinguished resume includes positions as Public Health Nurse Supervisor and Chief of Nursing Services at the Dade County Department of Public Health, Executive Director of the Visiting Nurses Association, and Assistant County Nursing Director of the Children and Youth Project. Her service as the Chairwoman of the Health Choice Network, Inc., the Screening Committee of the National Association of Community Health Care Centers, and the Legislative Committee of the Florida Council of Primary Care Centers, as well as her membership on the Board of Directors of the Primary Care Centers, Inc., are a testament to her superb leadership abilities. In 1970, President Richard Nixon recognized Ms. Trice's outstanding contributions and proven expertise in this field by appointing her to serve as a delegate to the White House Conference of Children. She was named Florida Nurse of the Year in both 1972 and 1984, and made Distinguished Honoree by the Academy of Black Women in the Health Professions. She has been named to the lists of ``Who's Who'' for Health Care Professionals, American Women, and American Business Leaders. Mr. President, the list of those who support and admire the work of Jessie Trice is long and distinguished. I am grateful for the work she has done on behalf of the state of Florida, and I ask my colleagues to join me in extending my congratulations for her thirty years of service in the field of health care services. May her examples of dedication and hard work continue to be of inspiration to others.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Today I join my colleague Senator Mack in supporting the right of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida to reside in Everglades National Park.

Mr. GRAHAM. It is also my understanding that by giving the Miccosukee Tribe this opportunity to build a community within Everglades National Park we are fully resolving their claims to land within the park.

Mr. GRAHAM. I am pleased to join the Senator in supporting the continued residence of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida in Everglades National Park.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to express my support of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998 which we are about to pass. I am co-sponsor of the original version of this bill, and I am also a co-sponsor of S. 1321, introduced by Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, which reauthorizes and provides funding for the National Estuary Program. A modified version of S. 1321 is included in the version of S. 1222 that we are reviewing today. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998 will invigorate our existing programs to protect and restore our nations' estuaries. The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas in the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove forests and seagrass beds, provide an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries because they support the nurseries for the most commercially harvested fish. Today, many of Florida's estuaries have been damaged from the impacts of increased development, non-point source pollution, and increased nutrient loads. Four of Florida's estuaries are currently a part of the National Estuary Program (NEP)--Sarasota Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Tampa Bay, and Charlotte Harbor. The NEP is charged with the responsibility of addressing point and not-point sources of pollution in addition to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity and maximizing the ecological and economic productivity of our nation's estuaries. The NEP has been working over the last twelve years to develop implementation plans for the 28 estuaries in the program that will achieve these goals. In testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee on the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, the Association of National Estuary Programs testified that today, 17 of the NEP estuaries are in the implementation phase of their programs and it is anticipated that by 1999 the entire national program will have reached the implementation phase. Three of the four Florida estuaries in this program have reached the implementation phase of their restoration plans. The Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program began in 1988. It identified several key focus areas for restoration: reducing nitrogen pollution to increase sea grass coverage; constructing salt water wetlands; and building artificial reefs specifically for juvenile fish habitat. Since 1988, nitrogen pollution to the Bay has been reduced by 28-38 percent, with approximately 22 percent of the lost sea grasses and 6 percent of the lost salt water wetlands being restored. It is estimated that Sarasota Bay now supports an additional 49 million fish, 33 million crabs, and 150 million shrimp than it supported 10 years ago. The continuation of our success is essential to the state of Florida. As I mentioned, our estuarine systems are home to marine and terrestrial species that form the cornerstone of critical natural habitats. They also are extremely valuable to the state's economy. For example, as Professor Walter Milon of the University of Florida testified on July 9 before the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Indian River Lagoon estuary stretches 156 miles along Florida's east coast, covering five counties which are home to more than 1 million permanent residents and more than 6 million visitors each year. The number of residents in this region is expected to increase by 24 percent between 1995 and 2005, increasing stress on this fragile system. Dr. Milon indicated that recreational fishing contributes approximately $340 million per year to the local economy; swimming, boating, water sports, and nature observation activities contribute approximately $287 million each year; commercial fishing of clams, oysters, and crabs contributed nearly $13 million annually; and residential land values were enhanced by approximately $825 million or an annual value of $33 million. The lagoon is estimated to bring more than $725 million to the local economy each year. Together, the provisions of the original S. 1222 and S. 1321 will provide authorization for much needed funding to be used for execution of these implementation plans. By establishing the concrete goal of restoring 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by 2010 and providing a mechanism to achieve this goal, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998 will energize existing local estuary programs to make forward progress on habitat restoration. I am particularly pleased that provisions exist in today's version of S. 1222 to provide funding priority for those estuary habitat restoration projects that are part of an approved Federal estuary management or habitat restoration plan. Today's version of S. 1222 has incorporated S. 1321, which reauthorizes the NEP to continue developing and implementing estuary restoration plans. However, there are some modifications to the original language that Senator Torricelli introduced, including a reduction of the funding levels by 50 percent and the length of the authorization from 5 years to 2. I understand that one of the items on the agenda in the Environment and Public Works Committee for next year is to reauthorize the Clean Water Act which will provide an excellent opportunity to extend the NEP authorization. I look forward to this critical project for the Environment and Public Works Committee. Together, the provisions of today's Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1998 will provide much needed support to estuary restoration efforts in the state of Florida and throughout the nation. In addition to the provisions pertaining to our Nation's estuaries, today's version of S. 1222 also includes provisions of a bill introduced by Senator Faircloth, S. 1219, the Pfisteria Research Act. Earlier this year in the Indian River Lagoon area, the estuary system had several outbreaks of pfisteria-like disease. This was attributed by some to be caused by outbreak of toxic organisms due to increased nutrient loading in the estuary waters. In 1996, a ``red tide'' caused by algal bloom was believed to have caused the death of 151 manatees off the southwest coast of Florida. The research program included in today's version of S. 1222 authorizes research into the eradication or control of pfisteria and other toxins--an action that will provide vital information that may be used to prevent future occurrences of aquatic toxin outbreaks. I am pleased to offer my support of S. 1222, the Estuary Habitat Partnership Restoration Act of 1998.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to make some remarks regarding S. 2131, the Water Resources Development Act which passed the Senate by unanimous consent on October 8, 1998. I would like to first thank my colleague Senator Mack from Florida for his partnership on our efforts to produce a WRDA bill that reflects the needs of our State. I would also like to thank Senator Chafee, Sentor Baucus, and Senator Warner for their leadership on this critical piece of legislation. The 1998 WRDA bill includes many key items for the State of Florida, a few of which I would like to highlight today. As you know, water issues in Florida include everything from coastal protection to inland water quality management and from statewide drought to statewide flooding. Our history dealing with water resources has caused some of our own problems that we seek to correct today. In the area of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: The Everglades restoration project is the largest restoration program in the world. This vast region, which is home to more than six million Americans, seven of the ten fastest growing cities in the country, a huge tourism industry, and a large agricultural economy, also encompasses one of the world's unique environmental resources. Over the past 100 years, manmade changes to the region's water flow have provided important economic benefits to the region, but have also had devastating effects on the environment. Biological indicators in the form of native flora and fauna have shown severe damage throughout south Florida. The work of the Army Corps of Engineers is essential to this restoration effort. The critical projects authorized in WRDA 1996 have demonstrated substantial success. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, local sponsors, and the Army Corps have completed a review of over 100 potential projects, narrowed the list to 35 and ranked them in order of priority for accelerating the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. In addition to this extension, the WRDA 1998 bill includes a $27 million authorization for the Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. This technology is presently used to create subsurface reservoirs for drinking water. The Army Corps is considering the use of Aquifer Storage and Recovery as a water storage technology for use in implementation of the Restudy. Our action to authorize work on this project will allow early evaluation of the viability of this technology. Finally, the WRDA 1998 bill includes clarifying language that expenditures by the state of Florida for land acquisitions in the Caloosahatchee River basin are eligible for Federal reimbursement if they are identified as part of the restudy when it is released in July 1999. Our action assures the State of Florida that acquired lands that become part of the restudy will be eligible for Federal reimbursement. In the area of water supply: One of the unique aspects of the Florida water system is that we frequently experience periods of drought and periods of flooding. This is the nature of a system that has been modified by human manipulation of natural flowways. In the State of Florida, our growing population coupled with the need to protect our natural systems has created a water quality challenge. From 1995 to 1996, Florida added 260,000 new residents, or the equivalent of four new Daytona Beaches. Between 1980 to 1995, Florida's public water supply needs increased 43 percent more than double the national average of 16 percent. This shows no signs of slowing down. Today, Florida continues to grow at the rate of more than 800 people per day. Many other States on the eastern seaboard face similar challenges. For example, a recent article in New Jersey Monthly stated that New Jersey leads the nation in the percentage of land mass that is classified as having a high vulnerability for serious water quality problems. According to the U.S. EPA, more than 66 percent of the State falls into the most precarious category for water quality. In addition, as early as 1983, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study stated that deficits in water supply for the area in Virginia south of the James River are projected to be as much as 60 million gallons per day by the year 2030. Ground water withdrawals have caused water level declines of as much as 200 feet in some areas. In the State of New York, water levels in aquifers are predicted to decline by as much as 18 feet and low flows in streams may be decreased by 90 percent in parts of Long Island. In each of these cases, water supply is tied to water quality. Problems such as groundwater overpumping, damage of existing wetlands, and saltwater intrusion of aquifers can cause irreparable damage to our water systems and surrounding ecosystems. For example, since 1906 wetland acreage in the State of Florida has shrunk by 46 percent resulting in a loss of both critical habitats and a key link in the replenishment of our aquifers. The development of alternative water sources that will help to resolve these types of issues and will allow States to provide for future water supply needs without sacrificing environmental protection is my goals. The WRDA 1998 bill includes a requirement for EPA to study water availability and make recommendations on the adequacy of our existing water supply. The study will form the basis of future water supply programs. The State of Florida is already taking the water supply issue seriously, and in 1998 alone has budgeted $75 million in regional and State funds for development of alternative water supplies. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee during the next Congress to address the water quality and water supply needs of the State of Florida. Together, these initiatives will protect the future of the State of Florida by protecting our water resources that are so critical to our environment and our economy.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of those who also favor the Jacksonville and Orlando courthouse construction, I object.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I object.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to aid millions of American families with one of their most pressing needs--child care. This legislation would make child care more accessible to millions of families who find it not only important, but necessary, to work. In the ideal world, most parents, I believe, would prefer to have their children raised by at least one parent at home. However, for a vast majority of families in America, this ideal is not possible. And for the working poor and many in the middle class of our society, this ideal is a luxury that they cannot afford. The legislation which I am introducing today would not solve the child care needs of American parents. However, it would serve to provide a much needed incentive--a jump start--to promote employer provided child care, particularly among our nation's small businesses. The legislation I am introducing today would offer a tax credit to those employers who undertake the responsibility of assisting their employees with child care expenses. This bill--the Worksite Child Care Development Center Act of 1998--would modify that part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which relates to business tax credits. It would do so by providing child care tax credits to employers for-- A one-time 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $100,000, specifically for facilities start-up expenses, which includes expansion and renovations of an employer-sponsored child care facility; A 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $25,000 annually, for those expenses related to the operating costs of maintaining a child care facility; and A 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $50,000 annually, specifically for those employers who provide payments or reimbursements for their employees' child care expenses. One may ask, ``Why is this legislation important to American employers and employees?'' Mr. President, I submit to you that there are four compelling reasons for the Congress to pass this legislation. First, child care is a major concern for American families. We should be concerned about child care because it has become one of today's most pressing social issues. Ask working parents today to identify their top daily concerns, and a large proportion will most certainly identify quality, affordable child care as one of them. On June 1st of this year, I hosted a Florida statewide summit on child care, which was attended by over 500 residents of my state who shared with me their concerns, and sometimes their frustrations, about this issue. The feedback that I received from my constituents covered a myriad of issues reflecting the high level of concern that parents have regarding access, quality, and the level of investment we are making in child care. We had five panel sessions moderated and staffed by 25 of Florida's most distinguished professionals in the field of child development and human services and education. The panels covered a wide range of issues from affordability and access, to quality of care, to public-private partnerships between government and businesses. I am pleased that I was able to hear from my constituents and from experts regarding the extent and nature of the problem. One participant summed it up well, ``The issues addressed in the summit today are concerns that need to continue to be addressed until the needs are met; however, the needs are going to continue to grow as our preschoolers and school-agers go into middle schools.'' Mr. President, it's no wonder that there is so much interest in the issue of child care. Child care, when it is available, is provided to a child at one of the most important times in that child's life. Indeed, recent research has confirmed what many of us had always believed--that quality child care can positively influence cognitive and social development. Current scientific research tells us that the most crucial period in children's brain development and brain readiness--which determines so much of the course for the rest of their lives--is that time between birth and the age of three. Second, America's workforce is changing. The work place has changed dramatically over the past fifty years. In 1947, just over one-quarter of all mothers with children between 6 and 17 years of age were in the labor force. By 1996, the labor force participation rate of working mothers had tripled. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 65 percent of all women with children under 18 years of age are now working. This percentage is not expected to decrease--it is expected to grow. As we enter the 21st century, women will comprise 60 per cent of all new entrants into the labor market. A large proportion of these women are expected to be mothers of children under the age of six. The implications for employers are clear. Employers understand well that our nation's workforce is changing rapidly. Those employers who can attract and hold onto the best employees are likely to be among the most competitive. Many of our larger corporations and government agencies have recognized this and are already moving in that direction. For example, our nation's military is often cited as having a model child care program for its personnel. Military leaders know well the relationship between a parent's peace of mind and satisfaction with good child care and job performance. In my State of Florida, several major firms have taken similar steps to invest in their employees. I recently visited Ryder Corporation's Kids' Corner child care center in Miami where more than 100 children are cared for in a top-notch day care program. Ryder has received many accolades, including being recognized as the Best Employer of Women in the State of Florida by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women. Ryder now plans on extending the care that it provides to the children of employees by establishing a charter school on-site. Similarly, NationsBank, formerly Barnett Bank, in Jacksonville, operates a state of the art child care facility for its employees. According to Ms. Mari White, the Senior Vice President of Work Environment Integration at NationsBank--and a member of my informal Advisory Committee on Child Care--this program makes good business sense. She views the availability of child care at the work site as a workforce retention tool for NationsBank as well as a great recruitment tool for new employees. In addition to its day care center, NationsBank also operates a Satellite Learning Center--a charter school for employees' children. I commend Ryder Corporation, NationsBank, and the many other corporations in Florida and throughout the nation, which have taken the important step forward in providing child care for its employees. I submit to you that small businesses, which do not have the resources to undertake such efforts, ought to have the ability to offer similar benefits to its employees. My legislation is intended to make it easier for them to do so. Third, child care is important for the success of Welfare Reform. This legislation is an important component to our national welfare policy. While most American families struggle with child care, this problem is most acute among the working poor and the middle class. In 1996, Congress and the President changed welfare as we knew it. We made fundamental changes to the policies, and the social expectations, relating to work and welfare. The federal government has asked our business community and governmental agencies to work in partnership in keeping the working poor off of the welfare rolls. If we are to see the reforms of 1996 succeed, we must ensure that the means to succeed are provided. The working poor--particularly those formerly on welfare--face major challenges associated with staying off of welfare. These challenges include their ability to: (1) get to and from work; (2) obtain the job training they need to get and hold onto their job; and (3) access to affordable and quality child care. Although States spend millions of dollars each year on subsidized child care, at any given time there may be up to twice as many children eligible who are not enrolled in the system. These children are on child care waiting lists. In the State of Florida for example, as of July of this year, there were 29,744 children on the state's wait list for these services. Many of these families on waiting lists do not receive temporary cash assistance because they work in low-wage jobs, such as in the retail sector, hotel and motel business, fast food restaurants, nursing homes, and child care centers. They earn too much money to qualify for many government programs, yet they earn too little money to have real choices about their child care. This is not an issue of whether they should stay at home or work-- they must work. In other words, for them child care is not an option, it is a necessity. I am reminded of a letter that I recently received from Ms. Ruth Pasarell-Valencia, the Commissioner at the Housing Authority of the City of Miami Beach, in which she states, ``We need to wake up from the nightmare of child care neglect. In this era of Welfare Reform and cuts in many public assistance benefits, we have to be very careful not to hurt our children in the process of making adults self-sufficient.'' By addressing our citizens' child care needs, particularly that of our working poor, the federal government has an opportunity to contribute to the success of welfare reform. This legislation offered today would be one part of the federal government's response to this need. Fourth, small businesses need this support. Mr. President, I believe that the provisions contained in my legislation will be a boon for American small businesses. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses in America employ: Fifty two percent of all private workers; Sixty one percent of private workers on public assistance; and Thirty eight percent of private workers in high-tech occupations. Small businesses have contributed virtually all of the net new jobs which have been created during these recent years of job growth. And small businesses represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods leaving the United States. Small businesses are truly a big piston in the engine of our nation's economy. Yet, we know that the owners of small businesses struggle to make ends meet. That is why initiatives like the one I propose are important for strengthening the vitality of our small business community. For small businesses, resources are limited and survival in a competitive world market is difficult. Think of the impact on a small business when one of its employees is absent for the day to care for his or her child because that employee's day care worker is sick that day with the flu. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, employers surveyed reported positive benefits associated with providing child care to its employees. The Treasury Department's data indicates: Sixty two percent reported higher morale; Fifty four percent reported reduced absenteeism; Fifty two percent reported increased productivity; and Thirty seven percent reported lower job turnover. Providing child care to employees can be a major step-up for small businesses. My legislation would provide tax credits to the employers who make investments to help their businesses and their employees with child care, or back-up child care when their regular services are not available. Mr. President, in concluding, I would like to thank the 30 members of my Informal Children's Development Advisory Committee in Florida which has provided invaluable support to me, my staff, and Floridians throughout the state. This group of dedicated individuals, who hail from a wide variety of professions, were instrumental in organizing the Child Care Summit which we held in South Florida in June of this year. They have worked with child care professionals, parents, and business groups to raise awareness on this issue, and have supported my efforts to draft this important legislative proposal. To them, I offer my deepest thanks for the assistance they have provided me and for all of their hard work on behalf of the welfare of children in Florida. I would like to quote Ms. Janet Ndah, the Dean of Students at the Punta Gorda Middle School in Punta Gorda, Florida, who says of my legislation: ``As an educator and a working parent, care for children is definitely a priority and a challenge. Therefore, I am extremely supportive of this child care act and in particular, the tax credits that employers would receive as they begin a site-based child care facility.'' Ms. Phyllis J. Siderits, who works at the Florida Department of Health--and who has served as a member of my Advisory Committee--also has written to me of the benefits of this proposal: ``This Act is of benefit to employers as well as employees. For too long, I have witnessed the inability to maintain qualified and competent employees because of child care issues, whether those issues were ones of compensation, scheduling and work time difficulties, or caretaker concerns. It is especially gratifying to know that this act would be of benefit to employees who have children with special needs and allow the employees to have closer contact with their children during the day where employer-sponsored child care facilities exist. We have not supported single-parent or dual-parent families who work and have tremendous difficulties obtaining child care. The ideal solution is an employer-sponsored child care facility. I think this proposed legislation offers all of the incentives to create a win-win solution for employers and employees.'' Mr. President, I am disappointed that it seems that the Administration's child care initiatives will not pass Congress this year. That comprehensive proposal outlined by the President at the start of this year would have provided much needed support to American families in this vital area. However, I believe that the legislation which I am introducing today would make a valuable contribution to the quality of life and care for families; the success of Welfare Reform; and the strengthening of our small business community. On July 30, 1998, I introduced, with 20 of my colleagues, a Senate Resolution which would designate October 11, 1998 as National Children's Day. That legislation now has 52 cosponsors and is awaiting passage by this Congress. It is only fitting that I am introducing this child care legislation just days prior to that date which the United States Senate is designating as ``National Children's Day.'' Mr. President, it is in recognition of our commitment to the children of our nation that I introduce the Worksite Child Care Development Center Act of 1998. Our children and their families deserve our support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. Res. 260 and a list of the members of the Advisory Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for those here on the floor and those who may be watching this on C-SPAN, I apologize, because we are about to enter some very arcane and not particularly exciting discussion. But it is necessary in order to understand what this amendment does and what it doesn't do. First, what it doesn't do. Mr. President, this amendment starts by saying on page 26 of the bill that is before us that we will strike lines 3 through line 5 on page 27. So for those of you who have access to the legislation, I ask if you will turn to those pages. If you don't have access to the amendment, I am going to make a statement. Unfortunately, both of those who have spoken--well, Senator Wyden is on the floor. I would like him to listen to this statement. If he feels I am misstating--since it is not my intention to have to read all of this language--would he please indicate where I am misstating. But as I read the amendment, with the exception of changing the numeration--that is, what was listed as an (a) in the Senate Finance committee language is listed as a small paragraph letter (i) in the McCain amendment number 3711. With the changes of those numerations, the words in the amendment are almost verbatim to the words that are being stricken from line 3 on page 26 through line 5 on page 27. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. GRAHAM. If there is a difference, I will yield to indicate that. In my reading of the amendment, I cannot find any substantial difference between the language that was in the Finance Committee's draft and the language that is in this amendment. We are striking out on the one hand and reinserting on the other. The difference begins with a new subparagraph added by the amendment, which is subparagraph Roman numeral (iv), beginning on line 16 of page 2 of the amendment through line 22. It is my understanding that paragraph will be deleted.