Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Coliguri, a member of my staff, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM. The central Florida drug trafficking area amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. I hope we can work it out. I want to be certain I am protected in the event.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if you are not on this list, does this mean you are precluded from offering your amendment?

Mr. GRAHAM. I want to make sure I am protected to offer my amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. GRAHAM. Is that motion debatable?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that will bring justice to thousands of Haitian nationals who fought for democracy and freedom against the greatest odds. Last November, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act to protect those who fled Communism and oppression in Central America during the 1980s. But while that legislation was a monumental step forward for fairness, it left one deserving group completely unprotected. Just as brave Central Americans resisted tyranny in their native countries, Haitians struggled to free themselves from oppression. In fact, many Haitians seeking asylum in our country are here because they challenged a regime that was wantonly violating basic human freedoms. Mr. President, these brave Haitians have suffered greatly for the causes of freedom and democracy. They should not be forced to endure serious disruptions in their life once again. Even though conditions in Haiti have improved greatly since 1994, Amnesty International reports that human rights abuses still occur. As people who contribute mightily to the strength of our communities, the Haitians living in the United States should not be forced to risk returning to the scene of their prior persecution . . . to face the possibility that it might happen again. This amendment is a bipartisan effort. Senators Mack and I--along with the cosponsors of the bill I introduced last year, Senators Kennedy, Abraham, Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Moynihan, Feinstein, Kerry of Massachusetts, Durbin, and Lautenberg--have joined together to ensure that the Haitian people who have sought fairness and justice for so long receive it in 1998. We have the bipartisan support of leaders ranging from President Clinton to Republicans like Jack Kemp and my Florida colleagues Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz Balart. Mr. President, we have left no stone unturned in crafting this legislation. We've asked for input from all sources. Senator Abraham held a hearing on this bill in December of 1997. The bill was marked up and passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 23, 1998. I have personally met with Senator Lott and explained the importance of this legislation to my state of Florida. Now we ask our Senate colleagues to take action. The 40,000 Haitian nationals in the United States face deportation in December if Congress does not act. Our nation was built as a bastion of freedom and a haven for those fleeing oppression around the world. We embrace that heritage in this legislation. Specifically, our bill helps three groups of individuals--a total of 40,000--adjust their status to legal residency. Those who were paroled into the United States from Guantanamo Bay, after careful screening by immigration personnel. These individuals were flow to the United States for review because their asylum cases were deemed to be valid and credible. Our bill also helps those who were not paroled from Guantanamo, but who came to our nation and filed an application for asylum before December of 1995. Finally, it reaches out to a small group of unaccompanied or orphaned Haitian children. The members of each of these three groups are legally here in our country. They have followed all the laws of our land. This legislation will give them the chance to continue working here. It will help them as they build small businesses. It will keep their U.S. citizen children in school. Most importantly, it will keep their vibrant spirit and determined work ethic alive in our cities and communities. During our field hearing, I saw the problem that Haitians face through the eyes of a bright, young student. She couldn't come to the hearing because she was working at one of the two jobs she holds to pay her community college tuition. Alexandra Charles is eighteen years old. She is an orphan who came to the United States when she was ten years old--after her mother was brutally murdered by Haitian military officials. She has over a dozen relatives in the United States who are legal residents, but who are not closely related enough to be sponsors. She has virtually no relatives left alive in Haiti. Like many individuals in similar circumstances, Ms. Charles was granted a suspension of deportation. But this relief was withdrawn after the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that the 1996 immigration law retroactively affected cases like hers. Alexandra's future in the United States looks bright. She is a hard worker and a model student. But without this legislation, our nation will lose the benefit of her special skills and her dedication to our community. Alexandra is just one of the thousands of law-abiding, hard working individuals who will not be allowed to pursue their valid asylum claims due to the retroactive nature of our 1996 immigration law. I ask for your help in this fight for justice and fairness. Let us prove once again that our nation values those who put their lives on the line in the struggle for freedom and democracy.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today along with my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, I introduce the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1998, legislation that will refocus the energies of federal, state and local governments on disaster mitigation, and will shift our efforts to preventative--rather than responsive--actions as we ready the nation for future disasters. Since the outset of this year, I have been working closely with Senator Inhofe to develop this bi-partisan legislation that will more comprehensively and efficiently address the threats we face from disasters of all types. The bill is composed of two titles: Title I seeks to reduce the impact of disasters by authorizing a ``pre-disaster mitigation'' program; Title II seeks to streamline the current disaster assistance programs to save administrative costs in addition to greatly simplifying these programs for the benefit of states, local communities, and individual disaster victims. In addressing the challenges we face from the threat of disaster, I have found it very helpful to use a ``doctor/patient'' analogy to guide our efforts. First, we diagnosed the problem: over the last ten years, disasters have affected the nation with more frequency--and at a greater cost--than we have experienced in the past. In fact, over the last several years, the supplemental appropriations bills required to respond to disasters have been unusually large compared to the previous decade due to a series of unprecedented disasters including: Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in 1992; the Midwest floods of 1993; the Northridge earthquake of 1994; and the Upper Midwest floods of 1997. Second, we offered a prescription to address the problem: comprehensive pre-disaster mitigation. This bill will authorize a five- year pre-disaster mitigation program, funded at $35 million per year, to be administered by Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. The pre-disaster mitigation program will change the focus of our efforts, at all levels of government, to preventative--rather than responsive-- actions in planning for disasters. Such a change in ideology is critical to reducing the short- and long-term costs of natural disasters. It will encourage both the public and the private sector, as well as individual citizens, to take responsibility for the threats they face by adopting the concept of disaster mitigation into their everyday lives. Just like energy conservation, recycling, and the widespread use of seat belts, disaster mitigation should become a concept that all citizens incorporate into their day-to-day lives. Since 1993, under the leadership of Director James Lee Witt, FEMA has truly changed their way of doing business. In the past five years, FEMA has become more responsive to disaster victims and state and local governments, and has ``reinvented'' itself by choosing to focus its energy on mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the effects of natural hazards. FEMA has already taken an important first step in advocating pre-disaster mitigation by establishing ``Project Impact,'' their new mitigation initiative, in local communities throughout the nation. I am proud to say that Deerfield Beach, Florida, was the first community to be chosen as a participant in Project Impact. By authorizing the conduct of Project Impact for five years in the legislation, we are making a definitive endorsement of both the program and Director Witt's leadership, and we expect that the initiative will produce measurable results in reducing the costs of disaster in the future. Mr. President, this legislation is the result of coordination and cooperation with FEMA, the National Association of Emergency Management, the National League of Cities, representatives of the private and voluntary sectors, and numerous other state and local governmental organizations. I wish to take this opportunity to thank all who provided important input into the development of this bill, and I am confident that our joint efforts have resulted in a truly comprehensive ``diagnosis'' of the problem, as well as a ``prescription'' to address it. In his testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, Florida Director of Emergency Management Joe Myers called this legislation a ``defining moment'' in emergency management. I too believe that this legislation represents a historic change in the nation's efforts to prevent the effects of natural disasters. By taking proactive steps to implement mitigation now, we will reduce the damage, pain, and suffering from disaster that have become all too familiar. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Inhofe and myself by joining with us in our efforts to protect the citizens of the U.S. from disasters now and in the future.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 100 years ago this past Saturday--July 25, 1898--U.S. Major General Nelson Miles and his troops arrived on Puerto Rico's shores to liberate the island from tyranny. On that historic occasion, he declared that the United States came ``bearing the banner of freedom . . . the fostering arm of a nation of free people, whose greatest power is in justice and humanity to all those living within its fold.'' One hundred years after those valiant actions and eloquent words, the nearly four million people of Puerto Rico--excuse me, the United States citizens of Puerto Rico--continue to wait for the fulfillment of that promise of justice and humanity. For the last century, they have been denied the most fundamental right of a free people: the right to choose their own political destiny. Mr. President, enough is enough. In the last 100 years, Puerto Ricans have fought for freedom as part of the U.S. armed forces. Through their vibrant culture and tireless spirit, they have made invaluable and lasting contributions to American democracy. But they have never had a real opportunity to exercise that freedom fully or enjoy the complete benefits of living in that democracy. Congress must right that wrong in 1998. Make no mistake: Puerto Ricans are ready for this opportunity. In its quest to gain the right of political self-determination, Puerto Rico has on three occasions held local plebiscites to express preferences for the political options of statehood, independence, or commonwealth. But since these votes were not sanctioned by Congress, they had little more than symbolic value. In 1997 and 1998, the Puerto Rican Legislature passed resolutions asking Congress to provide Puerto Ricans with a real opportunity to determine their political future. But our loudest action on this request has been inaction. It is high time that we move forward. The 105th Congress--and others before it--has held numerous hearings. The House of Representatives passed its version of Puerto Rico status legislation more than four months ago. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has thoroughly examined the many issues surrounding Puerto Rico's self- determination. We are fully educated. The only work that remains to be done are a committee mark-up and vote, Senate floor action, and a House-Senate Conference Committee. Congressman Carlos Romero-Barcelo, Puerto Rico's non-voting member of Congress, told the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that The unresolved dilemma of Puerto Rico's status is the single most important long term issue of concern to all Puerto Ricans. It permeates every aspect of our political and economic life and holds our future hostage. Mr. President, the United States does not hold innocent hostages. It frees them, just as it did 100 years ago when General Miles and his troops waded ashore in Puerto Rico to rescue the residents of that beautiful island from tyranny. In 1998, as the United States and Puerto Rico celebrate 100 years together, the U.S. Senate can decide to act as our colleagues in the House of Representatives have already done. I urge my colleagues not to make that decision by indecision. The 3.8 million United States citizens in Puerto Rico are counting on us to give new life to their long-frustrated dream of political self-determination. We must not let them down. One hundred years is far too long to wait.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to join briefly in the comments that have been made. The heroism of the two slain officers will be a permanent memorial to the hundreds of others, the thousands, the tens of thousands of others here and across our land who daily put their lives at risk so we can live as free and secure people. The greatest testimony that we could give to these two brave men would be to continue the practice of openness in this Capitol. Our democracy depends upon a very special relationship between the people and those who are fortunate enough to be their representatives. We must not break that bond. We must be prudent in our actions, but not closed in our demeanor toward the thousands of citizens who come here on a daily basis to observe their democracy. So I join in the comments that have been made by our leaders and extend our heartfelt sympathy to those families who have been so tragically ruptured by this senseless act. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 298, expressing our deepest condolences and support to the State and people of Florida for the losses they have suffered as a result of wild land fires that occurred throughout June and July of this year. Many of my colleagues will remember that Andrew roared ashore in the middle of the night and vented its fury on the people of South Florida. The storm severely disrupted the lives of thousands of families. This August, Floridians will remember Hurricane Andrew with another natural disaster on their minds. Since May 24, a deadly combination of intense heat and prolonged drought sparked more than 2,200 forest fires in Florida's 67 counties. Even for a state that is experienced in dealing with natural disasters, these fires have been spawned during what may be one of the worst years in Florida meteorological history. In late January and early February--in the midst of our state's dry season--several Northern Florida counties were deluged by massive floods. Not long after, parts of Central Florida were devastated by thunderstorms and tornadoes that are more typical in the summer months. The fire crisis is the latest example of our state's climactic reversal of fortune in 1998. Florida's hot summer temperatures are typically accompanied by afternoon thunderstorms and tropical weather. This year's heat and drought, and the lush undergrowth and foliage that sprung up in the wake of Florida's unusually wet winter, combined to fuel the fires that have put the state under a cloud of smoke and chased nearly 112,000 residents from their homes--7,040 of them into emergency shelters. Florida has sustained almost $300 million in private damage, and state and local governments have spent over $100 million in responding to the fires. In a step never before taken in Florida's long history with violent weather, every one of the 45,000 residents of Flagler County--a coastal area between Jacksonville and Daytona Beach--had to be evacuated from their homes over the Independence Day weekend. Mr. President, Mother Nature has once again subjected Florida to unprecedented weather conditions. But with the memories of Andrew's aftermath still fresh in our minds, we know that the national response to our pleas for help is anything but unprecedented--and are moved by the immediacy of Americans' heartfelt offers of assistance. In response to this crisis, Americans from 44 states are fighting side-by-side with Floridians to prevent these fires from endangering families and engulfing even more homes, businesses, and roads. For example, U.S. Marines, National Guardsmen, and National Weather Service meteorologists from all over the country have converged on Florida. California, Oregon, and South Dakota--states whose residents are not strangers to violent weather and natural disasters--sent nearly 1300 fire fighting personnel to Florida. North Carolina, a state that is even more heavily forested than my own, sent 47 fire trucks and 169 firefighters to Florida. Pennsylvania, which lost more than 2,200 citizens in less than ten minutes during the catastrophic Johnstown flood of 1889, has contributed 89 volunteers to combat this natural disaster in 1998. In fact, so many states have donated equipment that two-thirds of all the firefighting helicopters in the United States are now working in Florida. Mr. President, I have lived in Florida for more than sixty-one years. In that time, I have never observed wildfires as widespread and unmanageable as those that have plagued our state for the last forty- four days. On behalf of 14 million Floridians, I offer my deepest thanks to the thousands of Americans who have voluntarily left their homes and risked their lives so that our state's fire victims might not lose theirs. They are true heroes, and all of us who proudly call Florida our home are forever in their debt. I am pleased to announce that the Herculean efforts of these brave firefighters were not in vain. Floridians who were forced from their homes have now returned, and almost all of the fires have been brought under control. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support H. Con. Res. 298 to pay tribute to the citizens of Florida and those from around the nation who came to our assistance.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the current system is broken. Let me just give a few examples of that collapse. According to the General Accounting Office report issued the end of 1997, there were 600,000 illegal agricultural workers in the United States--600,000. In my State of Florida, a major agricultural production State, in 1997 the number of H-2A visas, the visas that would create a legal status for an alien agricultural worker, were four; not 400 or 4,000, but four. Third, the American worker is disadvantaged under the current system. As an example, if an American agricultural worker is employed by an American farmer, the American farmer must pay Social Security and other employment taxes on the wages earned by that American farm worker. But if the American farmer employs a non-U.S. farm worker, those taxes do not have to be collected and, thus, there is an incentive to employ the foreign worker before employing the American worker. Farmers are in a sea of complexity. There is a process under the current law in which a farmer can make an application for an H-2A worker. Supposedly, that application is to be processed within 20 days. In 1996, more than one-third of the applications failed to meet that 20-day processing period, and so the farmer was not able to get a signal as to whether his request for legal foreign workers would be met. This fails the foreign worker. It fails the foreign workers by forcing most of them into an illegal status where they lack the respect and protection that a legal program would provide. If I could give one example: In August of 1992, after Hurricane Andrew hit south Dade County, FL--a major agricultural production area--there was concern about a public health epidemic and therefore there was the desire to have people immunized against a variety of potential diseases. The public health officials found it extremely difficult to get the agricultural workers to come forward to be immunized for their own protection and the protection of the general public because they knew they were illegal and were afraid that, by presenting themselves for an immunization shot, they would be making themselves subject to deportation. That is the kind of fear and terror in which we have over 600,000 human beings in the United States, who are harvesting our food, live on a daily basis. Finally, the current system fails the American consumer. We have the opportunity in this country and have had historically access to the best food produced under the most sanitary conditions and the most affordable food in the world. But if we have many more instances, as the Senator from Idaho talked about occurred recently in Georgia, where a major crop rots on the field because of the inability to secure a legal workforce, we will be denying the American consumer what we have traditionally assumed is an American birthright. Mr. President, the current system is broken. The Senator from Oregon and others, who have joined together in this bipartisan effort, have attempted to understand what those problems are that contributed to the brokenness of the current system and to present a series of prescriptions to correct that. We look forward to working with our colleagues in a process of refining the proposal that we have made, but we believe this represents a significant step forward in terms of protecting the rights of American workers, of creating a legal workforce for the American farmer, and particularly the interest of the American consumer. Thank you. Amendment No. 3258, As Modified

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I request up to 10 minutes of time from the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am introducing an amendment to the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill regarding the Consular Service and the issuing of tourist visas. I strongly endorse tight immigration controls and strict visa policies to ensure that illegal aliens and criminal activity do not cross our nation's borders. At the same time, we must recognize the economic importance of tourism in this country and ensure that legitimate foreign travelers are not penalized by an overwhelmed consular service. To that end, I am asking the State Department to report to Congress on a regular basis the status of visa backlogs at our embassies worldwide and to conduct a study on whether the appropriate resources are being dedicated to the consular service. Tourism is a $473 billion dollar business in the United States and our country's second largest employer, behind the health care industry. We bring in more tourists to the U.S. than we send overseas, creating a $26 billion dollar trade surplus, equal in size to the car and auto parts trade deficit with Japan. By the year 2007, less than ten years away, the World Tourism Organization predicts the U.S. tourism market will double to nearly $885 billion dollars. We must make certain our consular services and visa procedures are streamlined, improved, and protective of national security interests in order to capitalize on the growing international tourism market. I hope you can support me in requiring the State Department to study consular resources and report back on what improvements or resources are needed to make it the best in the world, a secure system that can help promote U.S. as an international destination. amendment no. 3293 On page 86, line 8, insert the following after the colon: ``Provided further, That not to exceed $2,400,000 shall only be available to establish an international center for response to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;''. At the end to title VII, insert the following:

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator DeWine and my other colleagues in introducing the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998. This bill will provide an additional $2.6 billion over a 3-year period to implement a more comprehensive eradication, interdiction, and crop substitution strategy for our nation's counter-drug efforts. The bill will help the United States meet its goal of reducing the flow of cocaine and heroin into the U.S. by 80 percent in three years by combining a reduction in availability with demand reduction efforts. This is accomplished by providing more funding to those doing the heavy lifting in this fight--the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Defense. The U.S. needs to focus its resources in a comprehensive way to protect the entire southern frontier of the United States from San Diego to San Juan. Previously, resources were shifted from one part of the country to another, alternating between those states along the Southwest border and the Caribbean. This created ``gates'' where drug smugglers could move their product without fear of U.S. interdiction. This bill will provide the necessary resources to eliminate the chinks from the anti-drug fence, so that we do not have to choose between stopping drug smuggling in one area of the country or another. On June 22 of this year, I chaired a field hearing in Miami on behalf of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. The purpose was to examine the flow of drugs into the United States through the Caribbean into Florida. I wanted to gain a clearer picture of the current patterns of narcotics trafficking from the Southwest border back to the Caribbean and South Florida, obtain a better understanding for what the United States needs to do to increase our anti-drug effectiveness, and improve our efforts to stem this flow which threatens our youth. We held the hearing on the deck of a U.S. Coast Guard Medium Endurance Cutter named the Valiant, which had just returned from a seven week counter-narcotics patrol in the Caribbean. We selected the Coast Guard venue to underscore a number of very important realities in the United States' current strategy to fight the drug war. One of our principal interdiction forces--the United States Coast Guard--is conducting its mission on vessels such as the Valiant, a ship that is more than 30 years old, with an equally antiquated surface search radar. The Coast Guard needs new ships and newer radars. As I approached the Valiant, I noticed that there were a number of weapons systems on board, including two .50 caliber machine guns and a 25mm chain gun. These weapons reminded me that this effort is indeed a war. Despite the words of some officials who prefer not to characterize the effort as such, it is indeed. We are fighting a well-organized, well-financed, and doggedly determined enemy whose objective is to inundate our nation with a chemical weapon that demeans, degrades, and defeats the most precious asset we have--our people. What more do we need to know to energize ourselves to fight back? The individuals who testified at the field hearing painted a very disturbing picture. Consider the following facts: The United States Southern Command cannot maintain adequate radar and airborne early warning coverage of the region or sustain the right number of tracker aircraft to perform its mission to provide counter- drug support to states in South America and the Caribbean. The Joint Interagency Task Force East, located in Key West, Florida, does not know the extent of drug smuggling in the Eastern Pacific because the Department of Defense has not provided the necessary assets to conduct its Detection & Monitoring mission. The Coast Guard had to end a very successful counter-narcotics operation in the Caribbean, OPERATION FRONTIER LANCE, because of a lack of funding. The United States Customs Service is limited in its ability to capture drug runners in go-fast boats because of a lack of funds to procure newer and faster boats, as well as a lack of personnel to adequately maintain those go-fast boats currently in service due to lack of funding. The Drug Enforcement Administration lacks sufficient special agents in the Caribbean, as well as accompanying administrative and intelligence personnel, because the DEA does not have sufficient funds to hire and retain these individuals. The South Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area--responsible for coordinating and integrating federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies' counter-drug efforts--is constrained in its ability to conduct investigations by paying overtime salaries because of the lack of funding. If there is a trend underlying all these problems, it is the lack of funds being made available to those agencies responsible for performing the supply reduction component of the drug war. By adding resources to the supply side of the drug war--more planes, helicopters, radars, personnel, and boats--we will eliminate the need to constantly shift resources from one area of the country to another. Drug smugglers will no longer be able to exploit our weaknesses, such as the lack of Coast Guard, Customs, and DEA resources in the Caribbean. South Florida will no longer be a gate through which drug smugglers have entry into the United States. Those responsible for coordinating the national drug control strategy say that reducing our own demand for drugs is tremendously important. I could not agree more. That is why I was an original co-sponsor of the Drug Free Communities Act, and why I took steps to create and fund the Central Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. But addressing our demand for drugs is only one part of the solution, and that reduction will take time. We must take strong steps to interrupt the supply side of the equation as well. And quite frankly, we are not doing as much on the supply side as we should, or as much as we can. I am committed to seeing that more is done, and this legislation goes a long way towards achieving our goals. By restoring the support we provide to eradication and interdiction, I believe we can make a difference in this war, and the time to make that difference is now.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator DeWine and my other colleagues in introducing the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998. This bill will provide an additional $2.6 billion over a 3-year period to implement a more comprehensive eradication, interdiction, and crop substitution strategy for our nation's counter-drug efforts. The bill will help the United States meet its goal of reducing the flow of cocaine and heroin into the U.S. by 80 percent in three years by combining a reduction in availability with demand reduction efforts. This is accomplished by providing more funding to those doing the heavy lifting in this fight--the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Defense. The U.S. needs to focus its resources in a comprehensive way to protect the entire southern frontier of the United States from San Diego to San Juan. Previously, resources were shifted from one part of the country to another, alternating between those states along the Southwest border and the Caribbean. This created ``gates'' where drug smugglers could move their product without fear of U.S. interdiction. This bill will provide the necessary resources to eliminate the chinks from the anti-drug fence, so that we do not have to choose between stopping drug smuggling in one area of the country or another. On June 22 of this year, I chaired a field hearing in Miami on behalf of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. The purpose was to examine the flow of drugs into the United States through the Caribbean into Florida. I wanted to gain a clearer picture of the current patterns of narcotics trafficking from the Southwest border back to the Caribbean and South Florida, obtain a better understanding for what the United States needs to do to increase our anti-drug effectiveness, and improve our efforts to stem this flow which threatens our youth. We held the hearing on the deck of a U.S. Coast Guard Medium Endurance Cutter named the Valiant, which had just returned from a seven week counter-narcotics patrol in the Caribbean. We selected the Coast Guard venue to underscore a number of very important realities in the United States' current strategy to fight the drug war. One of our principal interdiction forces--the United States Coast Guard--is conducting its mission on vessels such as the Valiant, a ship that is more than 30 years old, with an equally antiquated surface search radar. The Coast Guard needs new ships and newer radars. As I approached the Valiant, I noticed that there were a number of weapons systems on board, including two .50 caliber machine guns and a 25mm chain gun. These weapons reminded me that this effort is indeed a war. Despite the words of some officials who prefer not to characterize the effort as such, it is indeed. We are fighting a well-organized, well-financed, and doggedly determined enemy whose objective is to inundate our nation with a chemical weapon that demeans, degrades, and defeats the most precious asset we have--our people. What more do we need to know to energize ourselves to fight back? The individuals who testified at the field hearing painted a very disturbing picture. Consider the following facts: The United States Southern Command cannot maintain adequate radar and airborne early warning coverage of the region or sustain the right number of tracker aircraft to perform its mission to provide counter- drug support to states in South America and the Caribbean. The Joint Interagency Task Force East, located in Key West, Florida, does not know the extent of drug smuggling in the Eastern Pacific because the Department of Defense has not provided the necessary assets to conduct its Detection & Monitoring mission. The Coast Guard had to end a very successful counter-narcotics operation in the Caribbean, OPERATION FRONTIER LANCE, because of a lack of funding. The United States Customs Service is limited in its ability to capture drug runners in go-fast boats because of a lack of funds to procure newer and faster boats, as well as a lack of personnel to adequately maintain those go-fast boats currently in service due to lack of funding. The Drug Enforcement Administration lacks sufficient special agents in the Caribbean, as well as accompanying administrative and intelligence personnel, because the DEA does not have sufficient funds to hire and retain these individuals. The South Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area--responsible for coordinating and integrating federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies' counter-drug efforts--is constrained in its ability to conduct investigations by paying overtime salaries because of the lack of funding. If there is a trend underlying all these problems, it is the lack of funds being made available to those agencies responsible for performing the supply reduction component of the drug war. By adding resources to the supply side of the drug war--more planes, helicopters, radars, personnel, and boats--we will eliminate the need to constantly shift resources from one area of the country to another. Drug smugglers will no longer be able to exploit our weaknesses, such as the lack of Coast Guard, Customs, and DEA resources in the Caribbean. South Florida will no longer be a gate through which drug smugglers have entry into the United States. Those responsible for coordinating the national drug control strategy say that reducing our own demand for drugs is tremendously important. I could not agree more. That is why I was an original co-sponsor of the Drug Free Communities Act, and why I took steps to create and fund the Central Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. But addressing our demand for drugs is only one part of the solution, and that reduction will take time. We must take strong steps to interrupt the supply side of the equation as well. And quite frankly, we are not doing as much on the supply side as we should, or as much as we can. I am committed to seeing that more is done, and this legislation goes a long way towards achieving our goals. By restoring the support we provide to eradication and interdiction, I believe we can make a difference in this war, and the time to make that difference is now.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment has been requested by the National Sheriffs' Association, the Western States Sheriffs' Association, sheriffs' associations from the largest States. It relates to a very narrow issue of the use of surplus aircraft, primarily helicopters, which have been made available to a local law enforcement agency. Today, there are serious restraints on the ability of a local jurisdiction which has an aircraft to make it available to an adjacent jurisdiction for things like search and rescue, overflights for drug control purposes, and a variety of other issues. This has been a major issue, an irritant to local law enforcement. It serves, in my opinion, no legitimate national purpose to impose these restraints on the use of donated surplus property aircraft to local law enforcement. I urge adoption of this amendment which will comply with the requests of American law enforcement.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an amendment which has been requested by the National Sheriffs' Association.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this evening I rise to offer an amendment with my distinguished colleague, Senator DeWine. This amendment is intended to assist law enforcement in doing a better job of protecting our citizens and the public safety. The background of this amendment goes back to 1994. Congress made what I think was an error when it passed Public Law 103-411. Under this law, aircraft belonging to law enforcement agencies are considered to be ``commercial'' if costs incurred from flying missions to support neighboring jurisdictions are reimbursed. Unfortunately, this law has placed unnecessary restrictions and costly burdens on Government agencies which operate public aircraft, particularly law enforcement agencies. The law restricts those agencies from using their aircraft resources in assistance of Government agencies and severely limits their ability to recover costs from those agencies which they are assisting. This law even limits the ability of neighboring jurisdictions to enter into mutual aid agreements. Let me give a typical example of how the current law is operating. In my State of Florida, it is not uncommon to have one medium-sized county which is surrounded by a number of smaller jurisdictions. That medium- sized county has the capability to make an application and secure surplus Government property, frequently a helicopter. That helicopter is used in a variety of public safety and law enforcement activities, often under the jurisdiction of the local sheriff. It may be that one of those smaller counties has a need for a helicopter or other aviation support. An example of that is, in the northern part of our State we have had instances in which locally grown marijuana has become a serious law enforcement problem. In order to identify that marijuana and effectively eradicate it, the helicopter is an enormous law enforcement asset. Yet, under the current law, if the sheriff from that smaller community wishes to contract, either on an individual case basis or through a mutual aid agreement, with that medium-sized county to get a certain number of hours of utilization of the helicopter and they agree to reimburse the medium-sized county for the cost of that operation, they are in violation of the conditions under which the medium-sized county secured the helicopter in the first place and sanctions might be imposed upon the medium-sized county's sheriff and their capacity to provide effective law enforcement for their smaller neighboring communities. At the very time when law enforcement faces the growing sophistication and organization of criminals, the Federal Government should not be placing increased mandates on our law enforcement officials. Today, law enforcement officials are forced to call around and check the availability of a private pilot and commercial aircraft before sending out the helicopter of that medium-sized county. Only if no one is available can law enforcement officials respond to the scene. Under this amendment, public agencies would be permitted to recover costs incurred by operating aircraft to assist other jurisdictions for the purposes of law enforcement, search and rescue, or imminent threat to property or natural resources. I might say, we just have had a dramatic example of that threat to property or natural resources in the number of wildfires we have experienced across our State, many of them occurring in precisely these smaller counties that are limited in their capability to respond. Mr. President, law enforcement organizations are strongly supporting this amendment. This legislation has been endorsed by the National Sheriffs Association, the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Florida Sheriffs Association, and the California State Sheriffs Association. Some months ago, sheriffs from throughout the country contacted my office seeking help. From my home State of Florida, I have heard from Sheriff Stephen M. Oelrich of Alachua County. Sheriff Oelrich stated, ``Public Law 103-411 restricts the ability of a law enforcement aviation unit to assist Government jurisdictions or other governmental agencies. Instead, it mandates that a local government must first turn to a costly private operator for air service.'' This is by no means a problem in my State of Florida alone. I have heard this from sheriffs across the country. Specifically, we have a resolution from the sheriffs of California. In the words of Sheriff Larry Carpenter of Ventura County CA, Public Law 103-411 has had ``a chilling effect on the ability of local governments to provide safe, cost-effective and professional air support capabilities to the very citizens we serve.'' Let me further quote from an article that Sheriff Carpenter wrote in the Summer 1996 issue of California Sheriff: The issue of ``compensation'' fuels this issue to a large degree. According to the FAA interpretation of this law, a sheriff cannot simply recover costs for flying a governmental mission . . . which is ``outside a common treasury.'' This flies in the face of mutual aid agreements between public safety agencies. For example, let's say the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department, which has no aviation unit, contacts my aviation unit and requests our helicopter fly an observation and surveillance flight of a suspected drug lab which their narcotics and SWAT teams plan to raid in a few days. We fly the mission, undoubtedly with the Santa Barbara deputy sheriff on board, and charge Santa Barbara County only our cost. There is no profit involved. Obviously, this is a sensitive law enforcement mission. Public Law 103-411 says we can no longer do this. Instead, a private operator would need to be contracted at a higher cost to taxpayers. This is only common sense that instead of restricting the ability of local law enforcement agencies to assist each other, we should be facilitating their ability to serve the public good in as efficient and economical manner as possible. I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that support from the California State Sheriffs' Association, from the Western States Sheriffs' Association, from the Airborne Law Enforcement Association, from the National Sheriffs' Association, and from the Florida Sheriffs Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Laurie Zastrow and Ms. Diane Trewin of our office be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of the Commerce-State- Justice appropriations bill.