Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Baucus, pertaining to the introduction of S. 2339 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing legislation that will simplify and streamline one of the most frustrating aspects in the life of a farmer: Finding qualified, legal farmworkers. There are two large issues that cause this problem: (1) According to the December 1997 GAO report, there are at least 600,000 farm workers in the United States illegally--and most have false, but realistic- looking, documents. The farmer can go to extreme lengths to verify his workforce, and still be vulnerable to INS enforcement action. Our bill, through an Agricultural Registry of workers, ensures that a farmer is able to get a legal, reliable workforce, and our bill ensures that these American workers are paid a premium wage and receive the benefits that they deserve. (2) Under the current system, if a farmer cannot find available American workers and does need to find temporary foreign help through H-2A visas, he or she must navigate a maze of complex regulations, so much so that it takes a 300-page guidebook to explain the process. He or she also has little assurance that, even after successfully completing the forms and initiating the process, that the Department of Labor will approve or deny the petitions in a timely manner. It may seem notable that we are all here together, in a bipartisan manner, from every geographic region of our great Nation. In the past, discussion of the H-2A program has broken down into a partisan, polarized, gridlocked debate, and no one wins. Wages are still low for workers, and growers still need legal reliable help. I commend my colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Bumpers, Senators Smith, Craig, and Gorton for helping bring common sense reality to the table, and together, crafting a bill that helps all sides. I thank Senator Abraham for holding a fair, educational and timely hearing on this issue, and for bringing all sides together to discuss what works and what doesn't work under the current system. We, as a bipartisan group, want to accomplish several goals, and I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support what we feel will bring order to the current chaos, bring honor to the farming community, and bring needed benefits to hard working farmworkers. Our goals are simple: 1. Make the H-2A system simple. With our agricultural registry, anyone can start the process by picking up the phone. Turnaround time can be counted in minutes and hours instead of weeks or months. Give our farmers the chance to choose between legal domestic workers, and legal foreign workers, with the domestic workers getting the first choice at all jobs. But the choice can be made to have a legal workforce. 2. Ensure that American workers get the first choice of every job opening. Under the Registry system--not a single foreign worker will come to the United States until every domestic worker on the Registry is employed in the area he or she has requested. American farmworkers will be able to easily link together a year's worth of work--moving from Florida to Kentucky to New England, if that is what they want. 3. Ensure that American workers receive premium wages and benefits. Under the Registry program, every legal domestic worker is guaranteed at least prevailing wage, plus a 5 percent premium. The growers will pay a higher price than they may be paying currently, but they have the added value of knowing with certainty that they are not vulnerable to INS enforcement action. Registry workers also will receive housing benefits, either on-site housing, or a housing allowance. 4. Put a stop to the horrible practice of smuggling human lives. Under the current state of affairs, every day, human beings are dying-- crammed into the back of vans, dehydrating in the California deserts, or murdered for the thousand dollars they are willing to pay for a secretive trip across the border and a set of false documents. They are drawn here by the jobs, many of them farmwork jobs. They put their lives on the line to work in an underground economy. They keep food on our table, and our economy growing. Let us take this underground system above ground. Offer a simple, reliable way to bring temporary, legal foreign workers here, paid at wages that will not disadvantage any American workers and protected by all labor laws and standards. 5. Don't hurt any other immigration category. All of this can be accomplished without taking away from any current immigration numbers. H-2A workers workers, by definition, are in our country for temporary, seasonal work--and they return home when the job is done. They will not swell the population of the United States, or become a burden on our social safety net. They will work side by side with the domestic workforce in one of the most important, but difficult, jobs in our society: putting fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, perishable delicacies on our plates each and every meal. Please join me in this bipartisan effort to simplify this complex system.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier today a group of my colleagues representing both sides of the aisle joined together to announce that we would be introducing legislation to increase the security in the retirement of Americans. I want to especially recognize my colleague, Senator Grassley, who has put a tremendous amount of effort into this legislation and, through his position as Chair of the Aging Committee, has demonstrated his commitment to the well-being of older Americans. Senator Grassley and I recognize that for our Nation to solve what would be one of this generation's greatest challenges, building a retirement security for today's workers, we need to move in a commonsense, bipartisan fashion. Many of the original cosponsors of this bill were key in crafting the sections of this legislation. Senator Grassley's efforts have expanded fairness for women and families and focused on the benefits of retirement education. Senator Baucus has brought the ideas that expanded pension coverage and eased administration burdens on America's small businesses. Portability, so important as we become a more mobile society, received the specific attention of Senator Jeffords. All businesses will have the hard work of Senator Hatch to thank for many of the regulatory relief and administrative simplification elements of this bill. And Senator Breaux, who focused on the big picture of retirement security leading the CSIS task force, has incorporated some of his ideas and the ideas of that task force into the legislation that we introduced this evening. Throughout this process of putting the bill together, our principal task has been one to listen and attempt to understand what we were hearing. We listened at the recent SAVER Summit, which was held here in Washington, DC, held at the direction of this Congress. We listened at town hall meetings throughout our States. We have listened at the Retirement Security Summit, which I held in January of this year in Tampa, FL, and the Women's Summit, which I held in Orlando in April. The ideas have come from pension actuaries, tax attorneys, Cabinet leaders, and some of the best ideas from everyday Americans. I want to thank those who have endorsed our proposal. Mr. President, with reason, much of the public debate has now focused on President Clinton's call to ``Save Social Security first.'' I wish to say, as the Senator from New Hampshire has just commented, I, too, benefited by the remarks that were made this evening by the Senator from Minnesota on what is happening on a global basis, in terms of meeting the type of problems which we face in providing retirement security for Americans. We all agree, on both sides of the aisle, that we need to assure that Social Security is as viable for my nine grandchildren and all of their peers, as it was for my parents and will be for me. However, Social Security is only one part of the picture. Pensions and personal savings will make up an ever-increasing part of retirement security. So, when Congress takes action to assure the future of Social Security, we are only addressing one-third of the problem. Our bill addresses the other two-thirds of the problem. Social Security will play less of a role for each succeeding generation of Americans. We must develop personal savings. We must assure that years of work pay off in reliable pensions. Our bill will help hard-working Americans build personal retirement savings through their employers, through 401(k)s, through payroll deduction IRAs, through higher limits on savings. The employers and workers both will win. Employers get simpler pension systems with less administrative burden and more loyal employees, and workers build a secure retirement and watch savings accumulate over their years of work. How, specifically, will our bill help? The first focus of our bill is small business. The reason for this primary focus is because this is where the greatest difficulties in achieving retirement security are lodged. Fifty-one million American workers have no retirement plan at work-- 51 million Americans without any retirement plan at the place of their employment; 21 million of these employees work in small businesses. The problem: Statistics indicate that only a small percentage of workers in firms of less than 100 employees have access to a retirement plan. This chart indicates that there is a direct correlation between the number of employees in a business and the likelihood that there will be a pension retirement plan. Firms with less than 25 employees have a retirement plan of 20.2 percent. Firms of 100 or more have a proportion of retirement plans of almost 85 percent. We are particularly focusing our attention on these smallest firms which are the least likely to have retirement plans, but which are the fastest growing segment of our economy. In the State of Florida, these firms of less than 25 have represented well over 70 percent of the job growth in our State in the last 5 years. We take a step forward in eliminating one of the principal hurdles that small businesses face when establishing a pension plan. What is that problem? It is the Federal Government having two hands: On the one hand, the Federal Government is encouraging these businesses to start pension plans, but when they hand out the second hand, they find that the Federal Government wants a palm turned up because the Federal Government is asking for up to $1,000 for a small business to register its plan with the Internal Revenue Service. We eliminate this fee for small businesses. We need to encourage small businesses to start plans, not discourage them with high registration fees. Mr. President, the second target of our legislation is women and families. Historically speaking, women live longer than men. Therefore, they need greater savings for retirement because they will have to stretch those savings over more years of life. Yet, our pension and retirement laws do not reflect this fundamental reality. Women are more mobile than men, moving in and out of the workforce due to family responsibilities. Thus, they are less likely to vest in a retirement system. Most retirement systems require a minimum period of time before the employee becomes eligible and has a legal entitlement to the retirement funds. Women are the least likely to meet those minimum years of employment. As this chart indicates, of women retirees today, 68 percent of women who retire have no retirement benefits; fewer than 32 percent have a pension for their retirement. Currently, two-thirds of working women are employed in sectors of the economy that are unlikely to offer a retirement plan--service and retail and small businesses. What is the solution? In an effort to address one of the problems of preparing for a longer life expectancy, we realistically adjust upward the age at which you must start withdrawing funds from your own 401(k) or other similar pension instrument. Under the current law, you must, you are obligated to start withdrawing money from your retirement plan once you reach the age of 70\1/2\, 70 years and 6 months. At the age of 70 years and 6 months, you are obligated to commence the process of withdrawing funds from your retirement plan. However, a woman at the age of 70 can still have three decades to look forward to in retirement. I know this because I represent many of these wonderful people in my State of Florida. At the retirement summit I hosted in Tampa, several retirees mentioned that they wanted to keep their money in retirement savings for as long as possible. We propose to raise the 70 years and 6 months age to 75 for mandatory distribution. We do this for both genders, because I am happy to say that men are also living longer. It just happens that women will be the most affected group of Americans by this proposal. We go beyond raising the age from 70 years and 6 months to 75 years by also providing that $300,000 of any defined benefit contribution plan will be exempt from minimum distribution rules. This accomplishes several important objectives: Simplifying the bureaucracy for thousands of Americans who have less than $300,000 in their retirement fund, and protecting a vital nest egg for the last years of retirement so that items such as long-term care and other expenses that are part of the aging process can be covered. Next, Mr. President, we deal with the issue of increasing portability. Over an average 40-year career, the current U.S. worker will have seven different employers. This represents a dramatic shift from the current worker's employment pattern from that of their grandparents where it was common for a person to commence their career and end their career with the same employer. We have the possibility of a generation of American workers who retire with many small retirement accounts, creating a complex maze of statements and features different for each account. The solution that we propose includes addressing one element of this by allowing employees, such as teachers, who happen to move from one State to another, to buy into their current locality's defined benefit pension system through the purchase of service credits so that when they retire, they will have one retirement account. It is easier to monitor, less complicated to maintain records about and builds a more secure retirement for the worker. The next issue that our legislation confronts is that of reducing red tape and administrative complexities. As I mentioned earlier, 51 million Americans have no pensions. The main obstacle that companies face in establishing a retirement program is often bureaucratic administrative burden. For example, for a small plan, the plan that would deal with companies that have 25 or fewer employees--in this case, the specific example is for a plan with 15 employees--it costs $228 per employee per year just to comply with all the forms, tests and regulations required to maintain a pension plan. We have a commonsense remedy to one of the most vexing problems in pension administration: figuring out how much money to contribute to the company's plan. It is a complex formula of facts, statistics and assumptions under the current law. We want to be able to say to plans that you have no problem with underfunding. To help make these calculations, you can use the prior year's data to make the proper contribution, and if you do so, you will not be subject to any after- the-fact sanctions. You don't have to re-sort through the numbers each and every year. If your plan is sound, use reliable data from the previous year and then verify when all the final details are available. Companies will be able to calculate and then budget, not wait until figures and rates out of their control are released by external sources. Another issue is pension security. Under current law, companies cannot fully fund their pension determination liability; that is, provide for a sufficient amount of funding in their pension retirement trust fund to be able to fund that particular pension to its full actuarial amount. The inability to do so puts workers at risk that the appropriate funds will not be available when their workforce retires. Solution? It makes little sense for the Federal Government to discourage companies from fully funding their pension plans. We propose to repeal this limit, the limit that keeps companies from fully funding their plan. In last year's tax bill we phased this limit up. Now we have a chance to take the final step and allow companies the flexibility to put more money in their pension plans when their economic circumstances allow. The next provision in our legislation, Mr. President, encourages retirement education. The unfortunate reality is that many Americans do not prepare for retirement because they just do not know that they need to. It has been said in jest, but unfortunately it happens in too many cases--it is true--that Americans spend more time planning a 2-week summer vacation than they do 20 or 30 or more years of retirement. Studies show that with education, participation rates in retirement savings vehicles jump dramatically. Eighty-one percent of Americans say retirement education has encouraged them to earmark more money for the future. So as Americans have a better understanding of what is involved in retirement--the financial aspects of retirement, the issues of personal health, issues of utilization of leisure time, and all of the other challenges that come in retirement--Americans respond as we would expect, with intelligence and appropriate steps to protect their and their families' interests. Our solution is to let the Federal Government serve as a role model. Programs already in place to educate our own Federal employees about the need to prepare for retirement should be broadly shared with other firms, both private and public. We ask that the paradigm for these discussions be made available to the general public so that they can be used by American workers who are employed by organizations beyond the Federal Government. We also ask that the Small Business Administration, which is so helpful to America's entrepreneurs in getting ventures off the ground and expanding when times are right, be involved in outreach in the retirement arena. Through web sites, brochures, whatever means they feel best, the Small Business Administration can help spread the word on what has already been accomplished--simple accounts, payroll deduction IRAs, and more--and keep businesses up to date with each opportunity to save for a secure retirement. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard on this measure. I ask for the support of those in this Chamber on this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Profit Sharing 401(k) Council of America, the American Society of Pension Actuaries, the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans, and the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, all of whom endorse this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment would require Country of Origin labeling of perishable agricultural commodities imported into the United States. I offer this amendment to ensure that Americans know the origin of every orange, banana, tomato, cucumber, and green pepper on display in the grocery store, and to improve the safety of food consumed by all Americans. In March of 1996, shoppers throughout California and nineteen other states discovered that the produce they had brought home from the grocery store was accompanied by an uninvited and unwelcome guest-- cyclospora, a harmful parasite that invades the small intestine and causes extreme diarrhea, vomiting, weight loss, and severe muscle aches. Immediately, the federal government's Center for Disease Control (CDC) sprang into action. The agency traced the illness to contaminated Guatemalan raspberries and directed consumers to avoid buying fruit from the Central American nation until the outbreak could be investigated, contained, and eradicated. Americans take this kind of urgent health directive seriously. But millions of shoppers found that their hands were tied against following the CDC's instructions. In 49 states, consumers discovered that grocery stores were not required to post where their fresh fruits and vegetables had been grown. The information required to prevent other Americans from getting sick simply wasn't available. Florida was the exception. For nearly twenty years, Floridians shopping at their local Publix, Winn Dixie, Food Lion, and other grocery stores have been able to make educated choices about the food products they purchase for their families. In 1979, in my first year as Governor, I proudly signed legislation to make country-of-origin labels commonplace in produce sections all over Florida. Country-of-origin labelling is not new to the American marketplace. For decades, ``Made In'' labels have been as visible as price tags on clothes, toys, television sets, watches, and many other products. It makes no sense that they are nowhere to be found in the produce section of grocery stores in the vast majority of states. President Clinton has unveiled a number of food safety initiatives over the past several months. Although his plans commendably call for strict safety measures in the growing and harvesting of domestic fruits and vegetables, and establish the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as another line of defense against potentially contaminated imported produce, they do not empower individual shoppers with the knowledge they need to make educated choices in the produce section. As the Guatemalan case illustrated, that is a dangerous omission. The current lack of identifying information on produce means that Americans who wish to heed government health warnings about foreign products or who have justifiable concerns about other nations' labor, environmental, and agricultural standards are powerless to choose other perishibles. Contrary to many claims opposing this legislation, compliance with a country of origin law would be of minimal cost to our nation's retailers. Both Publix and Winn Dixie have estimated that compliance costs most individual grocery stores less than $10 each month. The total cost for more than 25,000 retail stores in Florida is less than $195,000 annually. That's a small price to pay for consumers' peace of mind, and to preserve the concept of choice that is the foundation for our nation's free market system. Any first-year economics student knows that the laws of supply and demand do not work unless consumers have adequate information about goods and services for sale. Fruits and vegetables are no exception. In addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that twenty-six of our key trading partners, including Guatemala, require country of origin labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables. By adopting this amendment, our law will become more consistent with the laws of our global trading partners, and would not constitute an unfair barrier to trade. Giving consumers greater confidence in the produce they buy should be a central part of our nation's efforts to improve food safety. Congress can take a major step toward meeting that goal by enacting this amendment, and restoring American shoppers' ability to make an informed decision. amendment no. 3182 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that unauthorized user fees submitted in the President's budget have resulted in shortfalls for specified programs) Findings.-- The President's budget submission includes unauthorized user fees; It is unlikely these fees will be authorized in the immediate future; The assumption of revenue from unauthorized user fees results in a shortfall of funds available for programs under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee; That among the programs for which additional funds can be justified are: Human Nutrition Research; The Food Safety Initiative activities of the USDA and the

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the support of Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers for our amendment and agree that it would be appropriate to address any additional needs of farmers from other disaster-stricken regions in conference.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Senator's question makes the first point I made, and that is the inappropriateness of trying to write a piece of legislation that is as nuanced and delicate as this on the floor. I pointed out what I thought was clearly an interpretation that said that whatever the cause, we were going to be denying as a remedy the use of unilateral economic sanctions which included this prescribed list of food, agricultural products, medicine and medical equipment. Now the Senator is suggesting that he doesn't really want to go as far as this language and would like to say, at least in the area of national security, that we don't have to deal with our enemies. I think, personally, that is too narrow a construction. I think there are a variety of types of activities that the President of the United States, with the authorization of Congress, ought to be able to sanction in the most severe possible way, including denying them the products that are listed in this legislation. I don't think we ought to try to write that on the Senate floor at now 8 o'clock at night. This is exactly the type of considered judgment that we would say in this great deliberative body ought to be deliberated in an appropriate committee with appropriate public input.

Mr. GRAHAM. I look forward to the question.

Mr. GRAHAM. It is going to be a question at the end of this statement?

Mr. GRAHAM. I am sorry that we didn't have a question, but the Senator has moved me to point 2 of my remarks, which is the undercurrent of much of this debate, where we focus on the poor, particularly the hungry children. Everyone is moved by those emotions. There is a natural humanitarian concern about people, particularly innocent people, being denied access to the basic necessities of life. What offends me is the assumption that it is the U.S. embargo policy, whether it is against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or whatever rogue state, that is the cause of that impoverishment. This is a return to that classic ``Let's blame America first'' argument. Let's find out what is wrong with the world and then let's blame the United States of America for being responsible. The person who is responsible for the economic conditions in Cuba is not sitting in this room and is not residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The person who is responsible for Cuba's impoverishment is named Fidel Castro and he lives in Havana. Whether we do or do not adopt this amendment tonight, he still is going to be living in Havana and he still is going to be following discredited economic policies. He is still going to be following a personal attitude of disrespect to his own people. He still is going to be following authoritarian dictates-- because he wants to stay in power. So, Mr. President, the idea that we have to blame America first and find ourselves to be at fault for the poverty and the misery of the poor, particularly the young and the halt and the elderly, in these rogue nations, I reject and I find to be offensive personally, I find to be offensive to the values of the United States of America. Mr. President, let me move to the third point, if I could, and that is I do want to speak specifically.

Mr. GRAHAM. One more question.

Mr. GRAHAM. I say to the Senator, that is one of many of the kinds of questions that I would assume this bipartisan commission, which is just commencing its review of our current sanctions policy, will be looking at. I am not prepared tonight, nor do I feel myself competent tonight, to respond to the Senator's question as to whether we should have an addendum to our policy that relates to indemnification. But I am certain tonight that we also do not know enough to say that we ought to change 40 years of U.S. policy by adopting this amendment which has not been subjected, to my knowledge, to the first hour of serious Senate hearing consideration.

Mr. GRAHAM. But clearly, the plain interpretation of the sentence that I just read is that the remedy against whatever the cause might be, whether it is nuclear proliferation, support of terrorists, attack against our national security, harboring drug traffickers, or whatever the cause may be, we are just saying that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, we have denied from the President of the United States as one of the remedies against that causation the use of unilateral economic sanctions when those sanctions include food, agricultural products, medicines, and medical equipment. If that is not the intention, then I think the sponsors of this amendment should offer a modification--and I believe that is now within their power to do so--to clearly state it is not intended that the use of food, agricultural products, medicines, and medical equipment not be a restriction on the President's ability to use those products where the causation is terrorism, causation is an attack against national security, or some other cause. And then we could have a reasoned debate on just what would be the reach of this amendment. I might also say, I am concerned about the language of this amendment in that we have been focusing on food--wheat, corn, other products of human nutrition. But the language goes on to say ``other agricultural products (including fertilizer).'' Now, with that parenthetical, it seems to me that we are not to sanction not only food but other agricultural products, including those products which are used by that country in the production of its own indigenous agricultural food and fiber. That obviously would be the only reason to specifically exempt fertilizer. What about seed? Would that be an agricultural product against which the President could not impose a sanction? Would tractors, combines, other of the mechanics and equipment of agricultural production be similarly excluded from the President's range of sanctions that could be used? I believe the very fact that those questions are raised goes to one of the reasons that it is imprudent, at 7:50 p.m. on this Wednesday evening, for us to be considering this amendment. This amendment has been introduced as freestanding legislation. I assume it is before some committee of the Senate. The normal manner in which we would consider an issue of this importance would be to have a hearing, to have the language subjected to close scrutiny, not just the kind of scrutiny that can be provided here on the Senate floor by those of us who have an interest in and some knowledge of this matter, and a genuine public debate. After the idea has withstood that kind of inquiry, then it is mature to come to the Senate for consideration, for adoption, adoption that would reverse three to four decades of powers which the President of the United States has been granted by this Congress in order to achieve important U.S. national objectives. It is also ironic that we are doing this at this time, when we have recently established a separate task force whose purpose will be to review our current sanctions policy and to bring to us their reasoned judgments as to what we should do. It seems to me that prudence would indicate that the appropriate thing to do would be to at least wait until that group that we have just established has an opportunity to complete its work and give us the benefit of its recommendation, as to what our policy should be in this area.

Mr. GRAHAM. I don't know what the question was.

Mr. GRAHAM. I hope that at some point someone will explain what that modification is. But this question relates to a different issue. One of the typical restraints that the United States has imposed on the sale of food and medicine to suspect countries has been that there has to be an independent source of distribution so that the food and medicine will not be, as allegedly has occurred in North Korea, diverted just to feed the soldiers and let the civilian population starve. In light of that, I am concerned with the language on line 15, where it states that ``the President shall not restrict or otherwise prohibit any exports,'' and then it lists the items. Would this mean that the President could not impose a restriction, such as the requirement that, yes, we will provide food and medicine, but in a manner that will assure that the people for whose good we intended it to be utilized will be fed, will be medicated, not the elite or those elements of the society that are serving to oppress the people? Would the President be prohibited from making those kinds of restrictions?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise to strongly oppose this amendment, and I believe that the amendment has been mischaracterized, or at least the most reasonable reading of this amendment is different from the interpretation it has been given. If in fact it is the intention to have this amendment not apply to applications for national security purposes or purposes of punishing those who have engaged in terrorist activities or other events which were directed against the citizens or the society of the United States of America, then the amendment should be clarified, because the plain reading of the amendment on page 1 beginning at line 14 states: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President shall not restrict or otherwise prohibit any exports (including financing) of food, other agricultural products (including fertilizer), medicines or medical equipment as part of any policy of existing or future unilateral economic sanctions imposed against a foreign government. Now, the sanctions are the remedy for the action that has led us to be in a state of opposition to that foreign government. The cause of that might be that they were encouraging terrorism or they were engaged in activities that were considered to be a threat to our national security. The means of achieving that retaliation against a foreign government is a sanction, in this case an economic sanction. The economic sanction is not the reason that we are imposing; it is the means of the imposition. And so this language does not speak to the causation of why we are imposing the sanction; it just says that whatever the cause, whether it is terrorism, national security, or whatever reason, the President is prohibited from having as one of his arrows in the quiver of remedies an economic sanction that includes all of those items which are listed in this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield, yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, members of the Senate, today I join my colleague, Senator Mack, in offering an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that will provide much needed relief to agriculture in the State of Florida in the wake of the extreme drought and severe wildfires that have plagued our State in the last two months. The fire crisis is the latest example of our State's meteorological 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, combine to fuel the fires that have put the State under a cloud of smoke and chased nearly 112,000 residents from their homes, 2,000 of them into emergency shelters. These fires have had severe consequences. More than 220 homes, businesses, or buildings have been destroyed or heavily damaged. Nearly 100 individuals, mostly brave firefighters battling the blazes, have been injured. A 140-mile stretch of Interstate 95 was closed for several days. 458,000 acres of land have burned. Florida has sustained almost $300 million in damage. In a step never before taken in Florida's long history with violent weath, 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. On June 19, 1998, President Clinton declared all 67 Florida counties as a major disaster area and made them eligible for immediate federal financial assistance. In the weeks that followed that declaration, FEMA officials skillfully coordinated relief efforts and worked hard to channel additional aid to the hardest hit areas. Both the fires and their original cause, the extreme drought throughout the state, have contributed to a drastic impact on Florida agriculture, particularly in the North and West areas of the State. 600,000 acres of summer crops were destroyed or severely damaged by the drought conditions. Hardest hit has been corn which has suffered a 100 percent low on about 80,000 acres and 50 percent yield loss on another 20,000 acres. Value of the lost corn crops as of June 22, 1998, was identified to be $20 million. Cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and watermelons have suffered 25 to 30 percent losses. At the end of June, virtually none of the $60 million hay crop was harvested, causing the potential for a major shortage of winter feed even when the drought subsides. In the Panhandle area, many of the 7,000 farmers are facing their third straight year of destructive weather conditions after tropical storms and hurricanes in 1996 and 1997. In this region alone, farmers have invested more than $100 million in borrowed money to plant this year's crop, only to find themselves with no prospect of harvest at this time. In response to this dire situation, on July 9, 1998, Secretary Glickman declared the state of Florida to be an Agriculture Disaster area, making agriculture in Florida eligible for federal financial assistance. This declaration makes Florida agriculture eligible for several Department of Agriculture programs including: (1) the Emergency Loan Program which provides assistance to family farmers, ranchers, and aquaculture operators with loans to cover losses resulting from natural disasters. (2) the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) which provides assistance to eligible owners of non-insured crops when a natural disaster causes a catastrophic loss of production; and (3) the Emergency Conservation Program which provides assistance to farmers fro the purpose of performing emergency conservation measures to control wind erosion, to rehabilitate farmlands damaged by natural disasters, and to carry out emergency water conservation measures. These programs will provide vital assistance to the Florida agriculture community. However, there are some needs of Florida in the wake of this disaster that are not addressed by existing programs. First, in the area of forestry, we currently have almost 500,000 acres that were completely destroyed. To provide assistance for reforestation in this type of situation, the Department of Agriculture has created the Forestry Incentive Program which authorizes USDA to share up to 65% of the costs of tree planting, timber stand improvements, and related practices on nonindustrial private forest lands. In the state of Florida, there are over 7 million acres in this ownership class equal to 49% of our state's timberland. To support this need, Senator Mack and I have proposed an emergency appropriation of $9 million to be expended over the next 3 years to spur the rebirth of the Florida forests. Second, in the area of livestock, the state of Florida is suffering in two ways. We have had a small number of livestock deaths and are experiencing a widespread food shortage due to drought and fire. To compensate livestock owners for livestock deaths attributable to the natural disaster, my colleague and I are requesting an emergency appropriation of $300,000 for the Livestock Indemnity Program. Many of you are familiar with this program as it has provided support for livestock casualties in many of your states. This program will provide benefits in the state of Florida to beef and dairy cattle, swine, goats, poultry, equine animals used for the production of food, and ostrich. The need for livestock feed is a long-term issue that is affecting 32 counties with approximately 1,073,000 head of cattle, with severe problems with approximately 750,000 head. In the state of Florida, the majority of dairy and beef producers grow their own hay on individual farms for future use as cattle feed. The majority of these hays are seasonal, with a growing season spanning approximately 7 to 8 months. During the 2-3 months of severe flooding followed by severe drought and subsequent fire, approximately 1.5 million acres of pastureland has been completely destroyed, leaving approximately 1.1 million cattle with the threat of malnutrition leading to decreased dairy production and substandard beef production. Extension specialists estimate a need for 30 million pounds of roughage a day for Florida cows with only 15 million pounds per day available from current pasture production even with welcomed rains on part of the state. These producers desperately need assistance in order to provide adequate feed grain for their livestock. The state of Florida is fortunate to have received approximately 170 truckloads of feed that have been donated from Oregon, Kentucky, Illinois, Virginia, Delaware and Maryland, although only 82 tons have been delivered to producers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and North Carolina due to lack of transportation. While this feed would provide a starting point for renourishment of livestock, there are no funds available to transport it. To combat this situation, Senator Mack and I are introducing in this amendment a request for $10,000,000 for the Disaster Relief Assistance Program to be used in support of a livestock feed program providing reimbursement for feed purchase or transport for over 1.1 million head of cattle. Prior to 1996, the Emergency Feed Assistance Program was the primary user of the DRAP, providing 25,716,113 bushels between 1984 and 1996. This program was suspended by the 1996 Farm Bill. Finally, we are requesting an additional $2,000,000 for the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) in support specifically of conservation. For example, in the state, there are currently approximately 390 miles of destroyed fences in just 3 counties from fires resulting in potentially 12,000 cows roaming outside of home pasturelands. Mr. President, and fellow members of Congress: I ask that you give full consideration to this amendment and the dire needs of agriculture in the state of Florida as we seek to recover from the devastating effects of this year's drought and fire. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Nation and the world are aware of the very severe circumstances through which Florida has recently suffered and continues, fortunately in a less degree, to suffer, as a result of drought and severe wildfires. The purpose of this amendment is to restore various accounts within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that are intended to provide disaster assistance and makes that assistance available to those areas which have been designated, as of July 15, 1998, to be agricultural disaster areas. I urge the adoption of this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Mack.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment will increase by $2 million the funds available to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in their battle against the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, or medfly. I am, unfortunately, all too familiar with the devastation caused by these tiny pests, and I am particularly concerned this year, because Florida has experienced an unusual number of medfly infestations. In the past, medflies have caused significant damage to Florida fruit and vegetable crops. This year's infestation is particularly troubling, because it has occurred in the heart of Florida's citrus and tomato growing country. In Lake County, over 1,300 medflies have been detected since the end of April. In Manatee County, over 550 medflies have been detected since the first find in mid-May. In fact, just last week, a medfly was discovered in Highlands County, and as of today, over 100 new flies have been detected in this area. Unless fully eradicated, the medfly has the potential to cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to Florida fruit and vegetable crops. In addition, medfly infestation provides our trading partners with a convenient reason to deny the entry of Florida fresh fruits and vegetables into their country. Florida's growers have spent a considerable amount of time and money in their efforts to gain access to important markets, like Mexico. Each time medflies are discovered in Florida, growers are forced to take a giant step backwards in their markets access efforts. The eradication efforts themselves, through ground or aerial spraying and the release of sterile medflies, are also expensive, costing the State of Florida and the federal government over $20 million last year. The funds provided by this amendment will enhance APHIS's efforts to exclude and detect the medfly. Funds will be utilized to increase trapping and detection activities, particularly in urban areas and near ports-of-entry, where the introduction of this pest is most likely. Increasing funds for this program will also help to reassure our trading partners that the U.S. is committed to medfly control, and will deter them from restricting the entry of citrus products and other important agricultural exports. In conclusion, I would like to make it very clear that this is only the first step in a more comprensive strategy to address this critical problem. Because medflies commonly enter the United States via larval- infested fruit carried through ports-of-entry by travelers or by commercial fruit smugglers, I have asked the Department of Agriculture to undertake an immediate review of their inspection procedures at Florida ports-of-entry, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the inspection process. The Department of Agriculture has indicated that this review will be completed within the next three to four months. The results of the review will provide us with a roadmap for future actions, including the appropriate funding levels for a fully effective inspection program. I look forward to working closely with the Chairman and Ranking member to find a more permanent solution to this critical problem. On page 67, after line 23 add the following:

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I will yield for a question, yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. As well as every other aspect of the embargo. And with great respect, I believe that the policy that says, rather than lift the embargo, strengthen Fidel Castro, with no real prospects, with a country so impoverished as Cuba, that they are going to be able to compete in the commercial market to buy agricultural products--why aren't they buying medicines today? They have been authorized to do it for 5 years, and yet they have not availed themselves. The reason is probably that it is not a high enough priority of Fidel Castro to use his limited resources to buy antibiotics. He would rather buy equipment that his military and secret police can use to suppress the people. There is no expectation he is going to use any availability of the commercial purchase of foods to any greater extent that he has used his potential of commercial purchase of medicines. What I think does offer hope is to encourage a policy of U.S. private citizen, with limited Government support, philanthropy through nongovernmental organizations to the people of Cuba, both to meet and alleviate some of their current deprivations and build up some institutions that will help in the transition in Cuba. Mr. President, for those four stated reasons, I believe this amendment, well intended as it might be, is inappropriate for our consideration at 8:14 p.m. on the evening of July the 15th. I hope that it will be the wisdom of the U.S. Senate, if we are given the opportunity, to set this aside through a motion to table, and that we would see the wisdom of that opportunity and then would look to the bipartisan commission on sanctions as well as the standard traditional processes of deliberation in the Senate as a means to fully explore whether we, in fact, want to change a 40-year policy of the use of economic sanctions against some of the most rapacious or rogue states on this planet. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Chafee, Johnson, Grassley, Harkin, Hollings, and Inouye to introduce the Nursing Home Patient Protection Act--legislation to protect our nation's seniors from indiscriminate patient dumping. This bill modifies the original legislation to include several simple changes to alleviate the concerns of the nursing home industry and senior citizen advocates. It is with their support that we encourage the Senate to take action on this important piece of legislation. I have also included the following letters of support from the American Home Care Association and the National Seniors Law Center. A few months ago, it looked like 93-year old Adela Mongiovi might have to spend her 61st Mother's Day away from the assisted living facility that she has called home for the last four years. At least that's what son Nelson and daughter-in-law Gina feared when officials at the Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center of Tampa told them that their Alzheimer's Disease-afflicted mother would have to be relocated so that the nursing home could complete ``renovations.'' As the Mongiovis told me when I met with them and visited their mother in Tampa last March, the real story far exceeded their worst fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by the Medicaid program. The nursing home chain which owns the Tampa facility and several others across the United States wanted to purge its nursing homes of Medicaid residents, ostensibly to take more private insurance payers and Medicare beneficiaries which pay more per resident. This may have been a good financial decision in the short run, however, its effects on our nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a widespread basis, would be even more disastrous. In an April 7, 1998 Wall Street Journal article, several nursing home executives argued that state governments and Congress are to blame for these evictions because they have set Medicaid reimbursement rates too low. While Medicaid payments to nursing homes may need to be revised, playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way to send that message to Congress. And while I am willing to engage in a discussion as to the equity of nursing home reimbursement rates, I and my colleagues are not willing to allow nursing facilities to dump patients indiscriminately. The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice elderly Americans for the sake of their bottom-line is bad enough. What's even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions. The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law allows nursing homes to discharge patients for inability to pay. If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, the state and federal governments are no longer allowed to pay the affected residents' bills. They can then be conveniently and unceremoniously dumped for--you guessed it--their inability to pay. Evictions of nursing home residents have a devastating effect on the health and well-being of some of society's most vulnerable members. A recent University of Southern California study indicated that those who are uprooted from their homes undergo a phenomenon known as ``transfer trauma.'' For these seniors, the consequences are stark. The death rate among these seniors is two to three times higher than that for individuals who receive continuous care. Those of us who believe that our mothers, fathers, and grandparents are safe because Medicaid affects only low-income Americans, we need to think again. A three-year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of $125,000. As a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who enter as privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and lose health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many retirees' last refuge of financial support. On April 10, the Florida Medicaid Bureau responded to evidence of Medicaid dumping in Tampa by levying a steep, $260,000 fine against the Tampa nursing home. That was a strong and appropriate action, but it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared responsibility of states and the federal government. And while the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid dumping is not just a Florida problem. While nursing homes were once locally-run and family-owned, they are increasingly administered by multi-state, multi-facility corporations that have the power to affect seniors across the United States. Mr. President, let me also point out that the large majority of nursing homes in America treat their residents well and are responsible community citizens. Our bill is designed solely to prevent potential future abuses by bad actors. And this new bill is better, simple and fair. It would prohibit current Medicaid beneficiaries or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being evicted from their homes. And that is a crucial point, Mr. President. Adela Mongiovi is not just a ``beneficiary.'' She is also a mother and grandmother. And to Adela Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care Center of Tampa is not an ``assisted living facility.'' To Adela Mongiovi--this is home. This is the place where she wants--and deserves--like all seniors--to live the rest of her life with the security of knowing that she will not be evicted. And through passage of this bill, Mr. President, we can provide that security to Adela Mongiovi and all of our nation's seniors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Chafee, Johnson, Grassley, Harkin, Hollings, and Inouye to introduce the Nursing Home Patient Protection Act--legislation to protect our nation's seniors from indiscriminate patient dumping. This bill modifies the original legislation to include several simple changes to alleviate the concerns of the nursing home industry and senior citizen advocates. It is with their support that we encourage the Senate to take action on this important piece of legislation. I have also included the following letters of support from the American Home Care Association and the National Seniors Law Center. A few months ago, it looked like 93-year old Adela Mongiovi might have to spend her 61st Mother's Day away from the assisted living facility that she has called home for the last four years. At least that's what son Nelson and daughter-in-law Gina feared when officials at the Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center of Tampa told them that their Alzheimer's Disease-afflicted mother would have to be relocated so that the nursing home could complete ``renovations.'' As the Mongiovis told me when I met with them and visited their mother in Tampa last March, the real story far exceeded their worst fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by the Medicaid program. The nursing home chain which owns the Tampa facility and several others across the United States wanted to purge its nursing homes of Medicaid residents, ostensibly to take more private insurance payers and Medicare beneficiaries which pay more per resident. This may have been a good financial decision in the short run, however, its effects on our nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a widespread basis, would be even more disastrous. In an April 7, 1998 Wall Street Journal article, several nursing home executives argued that state governments and Congress are to blame for these evictions because they have set Medicaid reimbursement rates too low. While Medicaid payments to nursing homes may need to be revised, playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way to send that message to Congress. And while I am willing to engage in a discussion as to the equity of nursing home reimbursement rates, I and my colleagues are not willing to allow nursing facilities to dump patients indiscriminately. The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice elderly Americans for the sake of their bottom-line is bad enough. What's even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions. The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law allows nursing homes to discharge patients for inability to pay. If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, the state and federal governments are no longer allowed to pay the affected residents' bills. They can then be conveniently and unceremoniously dumped for--you guessed it--their inability to pay. Evictions of nursing home residents have a devastating effect on the health and well-being of some of society's most vulnerable members. A recent University of Southern California study indicated that those who are uprooted from their homes undergo a phenomenon known as ``transfer trauma.'' For these seniors, the consequences are stark. The death rate among these seniors is two to three times higher than that for individuals who receive continuous care. Those of us who believe that our mothers, fathers, and grandparents are safe because Medicaid affects only low-income Americans, we need to think again. A three-year stay in a nursing home can cost upwards of $125,000. As a result, nearly half of all nursing home residents who enter as privately-paying patients exhaust their personal savings and lose health insurance coverage during their stay. Medicaid becomes many retirees' last refuge of financial support. On April 10, the Florida Medicaid Bureau responded to evidence of Medicaid dumping in Tampa by levying a steep, $260,000 fine against the Tampa nursing home. That was a strong and appropriate action, but it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared responsibility of states and the federal government. And while the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid dumping is not just a Florida problem. While nursing homes were once locally-run and family-owned, they are increasingly administered by multi-state, multi-facility corporations that have the power to affect seniors across the United States. Mr. President, let me also point out that the large majority of nursing homes in America treat their residents well and are responsible community citizens. Our bill is designed solely to prevent potential future abuses by bad actors. And this new bill is better, simple and fair. It would prohibit current Medicaid beneficiaries or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being evicted from their homes. And that is a crucial point, Mr. President. Adela Mongiovi is not just a ``beneficiary.'' She is also a mother and grandmother. And to Adela Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care Center of Tampa is not an ``assisted living facility.'' To Adela Mongiovi--this is home. This is the place where she wants--and deserves--like all seniors--to live the rest of her life with the security of knowing that she will not be evicted. And through passage of this bill, Mr. President, we can provide that security to Adela Mongiovi and all of our nation's seniors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of the legislation be printed in the Record.