Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here with a sense of disappointment in that the President of the United States today is visiting my State and, particularly, visiting areas of the State that have recently been ravaged by an unprecedented series of wildfires. I regret that because of the schedule of the Senate, particularly the votes we have just taken this morning and those we will take later in the day, I was unable to accept the President's invitation, which he had generously extended to my colleague, Senator Mack, and myself. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to make a statement to my colleagues as to the circumstances in Florida. Mr. President, next month--on August 24--Floridians will observe the sixth anniversary of one of the worst natural disasters in recent memory: Hurricane Andrew. 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. It damaged 128,000 homes and left approximately 160,000 people homeless. The insurance industry estimates that Andrew cost our state nearly $30 billion. Perhaps even more sobering than these numbers is the knowledge that the devastation and loss of life would have been even worse had the storm struck just twenty miles to the north, in the heart of downtown Miami. These facts demonstrate the unprecedented nature of Hurricane Andrew's destructive force. But perhaps even more unprecedented was the tremendous generosity shown by people outside of Florida in the aftermath of Andrew's driving rains and fierce winds. Americans from every corner of our nation put their lives on hold to assist those Floridians whose lives had been turned upside down by Mother Nature. Some sent food and supplies. Others packed up cars, loaded vans, and boarded buses so that they could join relief efforts. State disaster agencies lent personnel, expertise, and know-how to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in its clean-up efforts. This enormous outpouring of support by Americans for people they had never met and neighborhoods they had probably never visited reaffirmed our belief in the vitality and essential goodness of the human spirit. 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 has sparked more than 2,000 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. The numbers that I have just cited, and those that I will provide hereafter, are the result of analyses done by local and State emergency agencies and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These fires have had severe consequences. More than 350 homes, businesses, or buildings have been destroyed or heavily damaged. Nearly 100 individuals, mostly brave firefighters battling the blazes, have been injured. Fortunately, as of today there have been no lives lost directly as a result of the wildfires. A 140-mile stretch of Interstate 95 which was closed for several days was recently reopened. Four hundred and eighty-three thousand acres of land have been burned. As of the current estimate of damage, with higher estimates anticipated as a full economic accounting can be completed, there has been damage sustained of almost $300 million to private interests and over $100 million in costs to local, State, and Federal Governments. In a step never before taken in Florida's long history with violent weather, on Friday of last week every one of the 45,000 residents of Flagler County, a county that is just north of Daytona Beach, had to be evacuated from their homes. That evacuation continued over the Independence Day weekend. I happened to be with Governor Chiles when he made that mandatory evacuation order. There is no more difficult requirement of a Governor than to order people out of their homes for their safety. Governor Chiles was resolute, he was prompt, he was compassionate in that order, and it no doubt resulted in substantial saving of lives, of potential injuries, and the homes of those persons who were evacuated. Mr. President, Mother Nature has once again subjected Florida to unprecedented weather conditions. But with the memories of recent disasters, such as Hurricanes Opal and Andrew, and the 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 America's heartfelt offers of assistance. The Clinton Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) moved quickly to ensure that Florida could rely on the federal government as a full partner in its battle against the fires. On June 19, President Clinton declared all 67 Florida counties as a major disaster area and made them eligible for immediate federal financial assistance. In the weeks following that declaration, FEMA officials have skillfully coordinated relief efforts and worked hard to channel additional aid to the hardest hit areas. We greatly appreciate the continued efforts of FEMA Director James Lee Witt and his agency. Director Witt has spent much of his six years on the job in the Sunshine State--responding to Hurricane Opal, floods in North Florida, tornadoes in Central Florida, and now fires in every corner of the state. I commend him and his fellow FEMA employees for their long-standing dedication to helping Floridians recover from Mother Nature's wrath. But it is not just FEMA that has responded 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. Two hundred and twenty-six firefighters and 53 firefighting vehicles have been airlifted from California, Oregon, and South Dakota, states whose residents are not strangers to violent weather and natural disasters. North Carolina, a state that is even more heavily forested than my own, has sent 47 fire trucks and 95 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 80 volunteers to combat this natural disaster in 1998. So many states have donated equipment that two-thirds of all the firefighting helicopters in the United States are now working in Florida. Even foreign governments have been eager to lend a hand. As Miami Herald Staff Writer Cyril Zaneski reported on July 4th, the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario ``offered firefighting tanker planes capable of dropping about 9,500 gallons of water an hour and refilling their tanks without landing.'' I am pleased to announce that the Herculean efforts of these brave firefighters have not been in vain. The tide is turning. Over the last few days, those Floridians who were forced from their homes have returned. Most of the fires have been brought under control. Meteorologists are predicting lower temperatures and more rain in the coming days. We have not reached the end of this crisis--but I am hopeful that this good news marks the beginning of the end. Before I conclude today, I want to share a story that I think demonstrates why Floridians are so grateful for the efforts of our friends from around the nation. An article in the Columbus Dispatch on July 6 chronicled the efforts of two Ohio firefighters in Central Florida. I'd like to read part of that article, and I ask that the full text be included in the Record. Around every corner, behind every door and over every store counter, the stories just keep coming--stories of gratitude to the men and women who have come from all over to stare down an inferno. There's the woman originally from Maine who invited all Maine firefighters to stay with her. There's the firefighter from Western Florida who, try as he might, wasn't permitted to pay for a pair of boots at Wal- Mart. There's the laundry owner from nearby DeLeon Springs who offered to wash buckets full of sooty, sweaty socks. And then there's the free eye drops and sunblock, the free bottled water and Gatorade by the truckload, the free food cooked up in every possible pot, from residents' kitchens to popular restaurants. Mark Puhl, a firefighter from Nelsonville, Ohio, who arrived in Deland with a relief crew Saturday night, got an early taste of the appreciation. ``Usually response like this comes through toward the end of a job,'' he said. ``But we had people in the airport thanking us in advance.'' His colleague, Lea Ann Parsley of Granville, Ohio, understood. The wildfires she typically fights are in sparsely populated areas out West. ``We're usually protecting timber,'' she said. ``Here we're protecting people's homes. It hits home a lot more.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, let me restate my unanimous consent, which is that upon the completion of the opening statements of the members of the committee, I be allowed 10 minutes as in morning business for a statement on the wildfires in Florida.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to my colleague and good friend from Utah for his kind remarks, as well as for his excellent analysis of this legislation. I join him in the same enthusiastic reform of the Internal Revenue Service and see this as an important chapter in a longer book which will soon bring us to the pages of simplification of the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. President, this legislation does mark a new era for the Internal Revenue Service. The hearings that we had disclosed some of the culture of the IRS as it has operated in the past. We focused on how to change that cultural orientation. Let me just mention three areas that we uncovered. One was typical of many large organizations, public or private, and that is a loss of focus on the mission and a tendency to become too internal in the way in which issues were reviewed. That tendency to become incestuous, to answer questions based on what is in the best interests of the organization rather than what is in the best interests of the customers--in this case, the taxpayers served by the organization--is, unfortunately, a typical transformation and a transformation which we found that the IRS had succumbed to. The new IRS will begin to analyze issues from the perspective of their customers, the American taxpayers, and, with that new reorientation, will become more effective in carrying out its mission and will be seen by the taxpayers as being less intrusive in their lives. A second aspect of the old IRS was its evaluation of employees based on how much money was collected. This is analogous to a police department which requires its officers to issue so many parking tickets or speeding tickets per day. It changes the priorities, it changes the perspective, it changes the public respect of the organization. I am pleased that the new IRS will evaluate employees based on how they deal with taxpayers as well as on their collection efforts. A third factor in the old IRS was the tendency to threaten taxpayers with enforcement action if they didn't agree to extend terms of payment or enter into other measures that would make tax collection easier for the IRS. We had an example of this recently, in which the IRS--and I commend them for having come forward with this--became aware that there were threats being made to taxpayers who already had entered into a multiyear installment payment, where a portion of that installment payment would be beyond the statute of limitations, beyond the reach of the IRS. Taxpayers in that circumstance were being threatened that, if they did not agree to waive the statute of limitations, they would be subjected to immediate cancellation of their installment agreement and required to make full payment at that time. The IRS had uncovered that there were approximately 22,000 instances of that improper threat and are in the process of notification. I am pleased to say on June 29 of this year, in Tampa, FL, the first actual check of over $1,500 was paid to a taxpayer as a refund because of the consequences of such a threat. Mr. Carl Junstrom, who was the taxpayer receiving that refund, has become a hero of American taxpayers because of his efforts to overcome the travails to which he was subjected and now has become a symbol that individual taxpayers can prevail in their own cases and can benefit many thousands of others. One of the significant parts of this reform effort is that it was a grassroots-up effort. It was an effort that didn't start by Washington telling American taxpayers what their problems with the IRS were, but rather listening, understanding, and then being willing to act on what we had heard. This is in the best tradition of democracy. Many of these individual issues came to the attention of the IRS and to congressional offices through taxpayers who had specific problems with the IRS, and they brought them to the attention of a taxpayer advocate in the IRS or to their Member of Congress. That kind of information began to accumulate, and it was seen that the problems were not specific and focused, but rather began to disclose a pattern of IRS problems, a pattern of needs for taxpayers to have a new relationship with their tax collection agency. Those individual taxpayer concerns then became the focus of hearings that were held by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Some of those were held here in Washington; others were held across the Nation. In January of this year, I participated in such a hearing with Congresswoman Karen Thurman in Orlando, FL, in which we heard, again, some of the specifics of taxpayer concerns which had previously been the subject of specific constituent complaints. Let me just mention a couple of those. Karen Andreasen, from Hillsborough County, FL, when filing for divorce discovered that her soon-to-be ex-husband had failed to file tax returns for 1993 and 1994. She then found that the IRS, having launched its case against her ex-husband, swiftly turned its attention to her. Tax liens were placed on her home; the bank holding her mortgage threatened her with foreclosure. A separation or divorce is painful enough for both of the parties and the children and others who are affected, without suddenly realizing-- like Karen Andreasen, a spouse who had placed confidence in her ex- husband and signed joint returns--they are subject to a deficit of thousands of dollars in back taxes on income they never earned and on tax returns that they never understood. Congress has now recognized the problem of Karen Andreasen and, in this legislation, we have provided that divorced or separated spouses can elect to be responsible for only their proportionate share of the taxes. We have also liberalized the circumstances under which other taxpayers may obtain innocent-spouse relief, and we have made this retroactive to currently opened cases so that Karen Andreasen and thousands of other spouses like her will be able to get the benefit of these new provisions. Thomas Jones was a decorated Naval veteran from Clearwater, FL. His business partner absconded with the company's payroll taxes. Mr. Jones did what a responsible citizen should do: He notified the authorities. IRS initially thanked him for his assistance, then proceeded to hold him 100 percent responsible for the partnership debt. Under pressure and unable to afford legal representation, Mr. Jones elected a monthly payment plan. When I met with him at an IRS reform hearing in Orlando, he told me that he was bankrupt. Interest and penalties were piling up at a staggering $2,000 a month. Twice during his 13-year-long fight, Thomas had offered to compromise with the IRS, but was summarily rejected by the same collection agent who a few days earlier had been bugging him for additional money. Good news. Thomas Jones may be the last taxpayer to suffer from such unfair conflict of interest, because this reform legislation expands the authority of the IRS to accept offers of compromise and guarantees to Americans an independent third party review of their offers and compromise. This will prevent the same IRS division from serving as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Mr. President, those are just two examples of Americans with specific problems who now have contributed to relief for themselves and for thousands of current and future taxpayers. There are some lessons in this experience which I think we in Congress need to understand, appreciate and absorb into our future actions. First, much of our success, in addition to taking advantage of the experiences of individual Americans, was the result of an IRS reform commission which was established 2 years ago. I applaud Senator Grassley, who is with us this afternoon, and Senator Bob Kerrey, for the work they did on that IRS reform commission. That gave to us the basis of thoughtful recommendations and analyses which substantially accelerated the work of the Congress and the effectiveness of that work. This indicates to me that we need to commit ourselves as a Congress to ongoing oversight of the IRS; that we can't wait until there is an occasional commission formed to review this matter; that we must have an ongoing responsibility to see that this agency does not slip back into the patterns of conduct that necessitated the legislation that we will be adopting later today. Second, we must recognize that this is but a chapter in the larger book of how to make the Internal Revenue Code more understandable, more appropriate, more taxpayer friendly. I suggest that the next chapter, which will be simplification of the Tax Code, use some of these lessons that we have just learned. That it, too, take advantage of the experience of individual Americans in what they would like to see, based on their own experience, in a more simplified tax structure for America; that we look to the use of expert panels, such as the IRS reform commission, to help give us indepth advice and advance our ability to engage in this next step of simplification of the Tax Code. My own sense is that a third lesson learned is that Congress can make substantial steps if it does it in digestible increments. I suggest that as we look at the Internal Revenue Code we ask the question: What are the building blocks of the Internal Revenue Code? How can we take each of these blocks in turn and systematically have it reviewed based on taxpayer experience, based on expert review and then, finally, congressional hearings and congressional action? I believe if we take that digestible, incremental approach, in a reasonable period of time we will be able to say to the American people that we have reformed not only the administration, but also the Tax Code itself, and reformed it in a way that will make it more understandable and more acceptable to the American taxpayer. I conclude by applauding Senator Roth for his great leadership and Senator Moynihan in holding the hearings that first exposed the problems of the IRS. I urge that we continue our active involvement as we see that this legislation achieves its intended result and move to the next chapter of simplification of the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. President, this is a happy day. I will, with enthusiasm, join what I am confident will be a large majority of my colleagues in voting for this conference report which will move us substantially towards the goal of an IRS Code that all Americans, that all those affected by its administration, will feel prouder about as citizens and will make their task of compliance with their tax responsibilities somewhat easier. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe in the order I was the next to speak, but our colleague from Utah has a committee hearing to chair, and so I would ask that he be recognized next, reserving my right to speak after Senator Hatch, in the hopes that my colleague from Montana could be recognized after my remarks so we maintain the balance of speakers on either side of the aisle. I also ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the consideration of this conference report Mr. Jason McNamara, Ms. Catharine Cyr, Mr. Brian O'Hara, and Mr. Michael Magidson of my staff be accorded floor privileges.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue which is of vital importance to our nation's brave veterans and their families. The Montgomery GI bill, which was made permanent on June 1, 1987, guarantees basic educational assistance for most persons who are, or have been, members of the Armed Forces or the Selected Reserve for significant periods of time. The Montgomery GI bill was created to help veterans in their readjustment to civilian life, to aid in recruitment and retention of qualified personnel in the Armed Forces, and to develop a more highly educated and productive work force. Currently, Montgomery GI benefits are considered ``other financial aid'' in the determination of need. In other words, when a veteran applies for financial aid, colleges and universities are required to consider veterans' educational benefits as a resource when computing the financial award. The ultimate result is that the total financial aid award is reduced. This penalty does not exist for other Americans who serve our country. The National Community Service Act of 1990 decrees that a national service educational award or post-service benefit shall not be treated as financial assistance. Mr. President, this inequity is an affront to the many veterans who have sacrificed to defend our nation from harm. Today, I am introducing the Veterans Educational Benefits Protection Act of 1998 to prevent GI bill benefits from being considered a resource in the computation of financial aid. Let me read to you from a letter that I received from a Florida veteran. He writes: I do not think that VA education benefits should be calculated into the financial aid equation for two reasons. First, I paid for the Montgomery GI Bill, albeit only $1200, but more so with a sacrifice of time serving my country. I previously paid for these benefits and am currently being penalized for that through financial aid . . . I did not qualify for any type of federal educational grant this year in part because my veterans benefits were counted as financial aid in my package. It's ironic, Mr. President. We created the Montgomery GI bill to reward veterans for their dedication to the defense of our liberties. They earn its benefits through years of service and help to finance them through paycheck deduction. But current law unfairly penalizes the 94 percent of veterans who sign up for the program and the 40 percent who actually use the benefits to which they are entitled. Our bill will revoke this self-defeating approach and restore common sense to this important veterans educational program. If it is enacted, Montgomery GI bill benefits will no longer be treated as other financial assistance for purposes of the need analysis formula. This is a critical change. It is well-known and well-documented that education has a dramatic impact on earning potential and employment success. Employees with a college education are more likely to earn higher salaries--and less likely to become unemployed--than those workers who did not advance beyond high school. Even worse, failure to enact this legislation will harm our efforts to attract our best and brightest young people to the armed services. The Department of Defense has identified the Montgomery GI bill as its best available recruitment tool. Mr. President, just over fifty years ago, in 1945, tens of thousands of American servicemen returned home from defeating totalitarian aggression around the globe. Because Congress had enacted the original GI bill a year earlier, they arrived with the assurance that the federal government would reward their brave defense of freedom and heroic sacrifice with a chance for a better life. When Congress passed that first GI bill, it made a covenant with the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our cherished freedom and democracy. By making it more difficult for veterans to finance higher education once they leave the armed services, current law has undermined that compact. I am confident that the Veterans Education Benefits Protection Act will help us reaffirm our commitment to these courageous Americans, and give veterans access to the higher education that they so richly deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue which is of vital importance to our nation's brave veterans and their families. The Montgomery GI bill, which was made permanent on June 1, 1987, guarantees basic educational assistance for most persons who are, or have been, members of the Armed Forces or the Selected Reserve for significant periods of time. The Montgomery GI bill was created to help veterans in their readjustment to civilian life, to aid in recruitment and retention of qualified personnel in the Armed Forces, and to develop a more highly educated and productive work force. Currently, Montgomery GI benefits are considered ``other financial aid'' in the determination of need. In other words, when a veteran applies for financial aid, colleges and universities are required to consider veterans' educational benefits as a resource when computing the financial award. The ultimate result is that the total financial aid award is reduced. This penalty does not exist for other Americans who serve our country. The National Community Service Act of 1990 decrees that a national service educational award or post-service benefit shall not be treated as financial assistance. Mr. President, this inequity is an affront to the many veterans who have sacrificed to defend our nation from harm. Today, I am introducing the Veterans Educational Benefits Protection Act of 1998 to prevent GI bill benefits from being considered a resource in the computation of financial aid. Let me read to you from a letter that I received from a Florida veteran. He writes: I do not think that VA education benefits should be calculated into the financial aid equation for two reasons. First, I paid for the Montgomery GI Bill, albeit only $1200, but more so with a sacrifice of time serving my country. I previously paid for these benefits and am currently being penalized for that through financial aid . . . I did not qualify for any type of federal educational grant this year in part because my veterans benefits were counted as financial aid in my package. It's ironic, Mr. President. We created the Montgomery GI bill to reward veterans for their dedication to the defense of our liberties. They earn its benefits through years of service and help to finance them through paycheck deduction. But current law unfairly penalizes the 94 percent of veterans who sign up for the program and the 40 percent who actually use the benefits to which they are entitled. Our bill will revoke this self-defeating approach and restore common sense to this important veterans educational program. If it is enacted, Montgomery GI bill benefits will no longer be treated as other financial assistance for purposes of the need analysis formula. This is a critical change. It is well-known and well-documented that education has a dramatic impact on earning potential and employment success. Employees with a college education are more likely to earn higher salaries--and less likely to become unemployed--than those workers who did not advance beyond high school. Even worse, failure to enact this legislation will harm our efforts to attract our best and brightest young people to the armed services. The Department of Defense has identified the Montgomery GI bill as its best available recruitment tool. Mr. President, just over fifty years ago, in 1945, tens of thousands of American servicemen returned home from defeating totalitarian aggression around the globe. Because Congress had enacted the original GI bill a year earlier, they arrived with the assurance that the federal government would reward their brave defense of freedom and heroic sacrifice with a chance for a better life. When Congress passed that first GI bill, it made a covenant with the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our cherished freedom and democracy. By making it more difficult for veterans to finance higher education once they leave the armed services, current law has undermined that compact. I am confident that the Veterans Education Benefits Protection Act will help us reaffirm our commitment to these courageous Americans, and give veterans access to the higher education that they so richly deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to clarify section 105(e), special rule, that states if in any of fiscal years 1999 through 2003, the amount authorized under subsection (d) is more than 30 percent higher than the amount authorized under subsection (d) in fiscal year 1998, the Secretary shall use the apportionment factors under sections 104 and 144 as in effect on the date of enactment of this section. Does this provision jeopardize the 90.5 guarantee rate of return even if a State's gas tax revenues to the highway trust fund are to grow significantly over the life of the bill?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his hard work and dedication to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century that passed the Congress on May 22. I am honored to have been a participant on the conference committee. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman to clarify a provision in the TEA 21 legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma and my colleague from Massachusetts for a very interesting, exciting debate which, from the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma, will be a teaser to a future debate that we will look forward to having on these issues in the next few days.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to ask for your attention to an issue of great importance to the future of science and space exploration: the International Space Station. We have debated the merits of this project on many occasions. It is time to end this debate and declare our permanent support. We must press ahead with mankind's exploration of the cosmos. President Franklin Roosevelt once said: The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith. I ask my colleagues to embrace Franklin Roosevelt's vision and support efforts to move the International Space Station forward. The International Space Station is one of the most promising space projects in history. Over 60 percent of the station hardware, nearly half a million pounds, will be assembled by the end of this year. More than 75 percent of the developmental activities are completed. The end result of this 16-nation effort will be an international university in low-earth orbit and a launching pad for further exploration of the stars. Mr. President, constructing this space station will not be simple or cheap. But why would we expect it to be? For the first time in the history of manned space exploration, we are assembling a laboratory, energy plant, and apartment complex the size of a football field in orbit 200 miles above the Earth. This is an ambitious technical feat. Our nation's exploration of the galaxy has never been easy. While we prefer to remember glorious moments like our distinguished colleague John Glenn's first orbit, Neil Armstrong's first moon landing, and the majestic first launch of the space shuttle, we should not forget that America's four decade adventure in space has also been plagued by technical difficulties and political struggles. We've faced tragedies-- namely the three brave astronauts who lost their lives in the Apollo I fire, and the seven others who perished on the Challenger. Space exploration has been exciting, but it has never been easy. But perseverance and patience have powered our space program past these difficulties, and they will be necessary ingredients in our effort to construct and maintain this International Space Station. Without the perseverance and patience of early space pioneers, we might not have been the first nation to land on the moon or successfully operate a reusable launch vehicle. The International Space Station will excite the nation and the world. I cannot imagine any other project that will so readily inspire young people across our country to focus their attention on math and science. The first launch of space station components will cultivate the next generation of mechanical engineers, software designers, flight controllers, and of course, our astronaut corps. Throughout its lifetime, the space station will include student experiments and teleconferencing and telescience projects. For this investment, we will have a permanent facility in space in which we can conduct numerous scientific and medical experiments, the end results possibly being cures for diseases known and unknown. For instance, space-grown insulin crystals created in a microgravity environment are larger and better defined than those developed on Earth. Scientists from NASA and the pharmaceutical industry hope to develop drugs that will bind insulin and attack the third leading cause of death in this country, diabetes. Microgravity can also be used to study proteins and three-dimensional tissue samples. Previous success in advanced cell-culturing has led to partnerships with the National Institutes of Health in the study of transmission of the AIDS virus. This application of space technology has also led to new studies of cancer tumors. Space flight is particularly applicable to studying the aging process, since astronauts experience many of the same symptoms seen in the elderly, such as anemia, loss of muscle, and imbalance. Women are five times more likely to suffer from osteoporosis, the medical term for weakening bones. What better way to study it than to simulate it in space? The results could be fewer broken bones in the years to come as baby boomers advance in age. In addition to the tremendous health benefits we will reap from medical studies on the space station, our daily lives will be affected by numerous spin-offs and product developments. Aerogel is the lightest known solid, only three times heavier than air. Space-manufactured samples are four times better in quality than any produced on earth, allowing for the creation of superinsulators. Fortune magazine predicts the aerogel market could result in 800 potential product lines, from satellite parts to surfboard material. Finally, as demonstrated by the devastating Florida fires, combustion represents a threat in many forms. Fires cause 5,000 deaths and $26 billion in property losses every year, a figure I am certain will be higher due to the terrible losses we have suffered in Florida. How can a space station help? In space, researchers can study flames without the interference of the earth's gravity. Such studies will help us better understand how combustion happens and better address problems such as air pollution and forest fires. The House and Senate share a vision for the future of space and we must continue to act together on behalf of this visionary project. The future will soon be upon us. We don't want to see it pass us by. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and endorse the International Space Station. We must not let the doubts of today stand in the way of the possibilities of tomorrow.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to commend the efforts of the conferees of the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 for the hard work they have done to secure passage of child support reform legislation. The legislation that has passed the House and Senate represents a significant victory for children who are getting the support they need from both parents. I am pleased that the conferees accepted a provision offered by Senator Grassley and I to further enhance the states' efforts along with banks to streamline the matching process that is required to gather financial information to support our children. The changes we have proposed through this provision will allow the Federal Parent Locator Service to aid our State agencies in their collection efforts. Financial institutions doing business in two or more States would be able to use the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist them in matching data for child support enforcement purposes. The language included in this provision will provide a structure for a centralized and coordinated matching process, thereby streamlining data matches for the financial institutions and state child support enforcement programs. We believe that such measures will prevent the duplication of efforts by states and banks and assist us in the ultimate aim of getting more money to more children more quickly.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today with my good friend and colleague Senator Mack I introduce the ``Florida Coast Protection Act''. This legislation will protect Florida's fragile coastline from outer continental shelf leasing and drilling in three important ways. First, it transforms the annual moratorium on leasing and preleasing activity off the coast of Florida into a permanent ban covering Planning Areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida, and the South Atlantic Planning Area. Second, it raises the bar for approval of development and production requests on existing leases off the coast of Florida. It establishes a Joint Federal-State Outer Continental Shelf Task Force comprised of experts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Minerals Management Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Biological Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey, state representatives, and professional scientist nominated by the National Academy of Sciences. This Joint Task Force will ensure that all data required to make a determination of the environmental and economic effects of oil and gas production and development on local communities is available to the Secretary of Interior and the State of Florida. Third, the Florida Coast Protection Act corrects an egregious conflict in regulatory provisions where an affected state is required to make a consistency determination for proposed oil and gas production or development under the Coastal Zone Management Act prior to receiving the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the Mineral Management Service. Our bill requires that the EIS is provided to affected states six months before they make a consistency determination. Mr. President, you may recall that we introduced similar legislation under the same title in June of 1997. The focus of that bill was the cancellation of the lease tract 17 miles off the coast of Pensacola, resulting in the elimination of six oil and gas leases. Since that time, these leases were relinquished by the Mobil Corporation back to the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior. In addition, these areas are covered by the moratorium on leasing in the Eastern Gulf--a protection that President Clinton recently extended through 2012 as part of the Year of the Ocean efforts to protect this extremely valuable natural resource. What would this bill mean for Florida? The elimination of preleasing activity and lease sales off the coast of Florida protects our economic and environmental future. In 1997, over 47 million tourists visited Florida, spending $41 billion. The five western counties of the Florida Panhandle brought in over $8 million from tourist development tax in 1996. Three cities in this area--Panama City, Pensacola, and Fort Walton Beach--recorded over $1.5 billion in tourism and recreation taxable sales during the same period. It is home to some of the richest estuarine areas in the world. These habitats provide an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of both marine and terrestrial species. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies heavily on these estuaries as they support the nurseries for most commercially harvested fish. In addition, nearly 90 percent of the reef fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico are caught on the West Florida Shelf. Mr. President, the environmental and economic value of this area is evidenced by the many state and federal land holdings in designated environmental preservation, conservation, and recreation areas. Fifty of these areas are located along 175 miles of coastline in the Florida Panhandle. In testimony before the House Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on May 14, 1998, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles provided the following perspective on the potential damage to Florida's coastline that could be caused by offshore drilling. He said that ``oil spills remain the most visible . . . however, there are other detrimental environmental effects that these activities could have on the shallow, clean water marine communities found on the Florida outer continental shelf . . . [including] . . . physical disturbances caused by anchoring, pipeline placement and rig construction, the resuspension of bottom sediments, and the chronic pollution from discharges of drilling effluents, production effluents, and possible accidental releases of oil or other toxic material . . .'' Throughout my time in the Senate, I have opposed offshore oil drilling off the coast of Florida because of the threat it presents to the state's greatest natural and economic resource--our coastal environment. With my colleagues in the Florida delegation, I have worked successfully to obtain moratoria on additional leasing off the west Florida coast. With the passage of the Florida Coast Protection Act, this annual moratoria will evolve into permanent protection for the Florida coastline. The Florida Coast Protection Act is a milestone in our attempts to protect our natural coastal resources in the State of Florida and throughout the nation. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill which is now before us. But first, I would like to congratulate the members of the Armed Services Committee for the excellent work they have done in preparing this legislation. I know they are being asked to do more and more with less and less, and they are having to make some very tough choices. The Committee has done an outstanding job and they deserve to be commended for it. I would also like to pay special tribute to the Chairman, Senator Thurmond, who is managing this legislation for the final time. His record of service to this country is remarkable. It is symbolic of the greatness of this country that this paratrooper who landed in Normandy on D-Day, who fought the tyranny of Nazi Germany and saw it defeated, fought the tyranny of the Stalinist Soviet Union and saw it defeated, rose to the Senate of our great nation and then to become Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. His experience and commitment to our national security has strengthened democracy and peace here and abroad. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to this great American. Mr. President, defense spending has declined for the last 14 years, and is now at the lowest point as a percentage of GDP since before the Second World War. We have decreased military personnel by 39% since the end of the Cold War. I supported these reductions during the time that I was privileged to serve on the Armed Services Committee. At that time, the federal budget deficit was spiraling out of control and balancing the budget was one of my highest priorities. I think the pendulum may be beginning to swing the other way. We now expect to realize a significant budget surplus this year, perhaps more than $50 billion. In light of this, it may be appropriate to review the limits we have set on defense spending so that we can halt the annual decreases in defense spending. Even holding the defense budget constant in real terms would make a significant difference to all those who serve in our armed forces. I know that my colleagues Senator Stevens and Senator Dominici share this concern. It has been reported that Navy Secretary Dalton believes that the Navy cannot afford to both modernize and recapitalize our naval forces within current fiscal guidance, placing readiness at significant risk. I would urge all of my colleagues to recognize the great strain we are placing on our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as we continually ask them to do more while providing them with less. I now would like to turn to an amendment that I have introduced, together with Senator Bennett, which deals with the Y2K problem. I understand that this amendment will be accepted by both the majority and the minority, and I would like to thank both sides for their assistance in finding a formulation which is acceptable to both sides. We now are undertaking a massive effort to deal with this problem within the U.S. Government. The Defense Department alone has over 2800 critical systems that must be ``cured.'' The Russians, however, have not yet determined if they have a similar problem, let alone begun to fix it. Given the potential impact of such a problem on military weapons systems, it is in our national interest to work with Russia, and other nations with similar problem, to help them identify the scope of their Y2K problem in strategic systems and to fix it. Our amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into cooperative agreements with foreign governments to assist them in identifying and correcting their Y2K problems in strategic and communications systems that would otherwise threaten the national security interests of the United States. It would be detrimental to our interests if the Russians awoke on the morning of January 1, 2000, with blank screens on their early warning radars and command and control systems. What would be even worse is if their critical systems continued to operate with false and corrupted information. It is in both U.S. and Russian interests for our countries to maintain the highest level of confidence in our command and control systems. We must build this confidence through transparency and other cooperative measures. The recent nuclear escalation on the Indian subcontinent demonstrates the importance of mutual trust and confidence, and the danger and instability that can result when uncertainty and miscalculation arise. Assisting the Russians with their Y2K problem is an example of cooperation that will enhance both Russian and U.S. national security.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I supported this bill when it passed the Senate several weeks ago. And I regretfully rise to oppose this conference report. As has been said by several of the speakers, there are many positive elements in this legislation. I am particularly supportive of those, for instance, which will make it easier for families to plan and prepare for the college/university education of their children and family members through things like the education savings account and the prepaid college tuition plans which Florida and several other States have established. Those are all positives. When I face legislation at the final vote, there are two questions that I ask of myself. One is, Is this legislation better than the status quo? And, second, If it is better than the status quo, is it sufficiently an improvement to justify the investment of public attention, political energy, and the likelihood that, should this become law, it will be considered this Congress' final statement on this subject? I find this bill, as it returned from the conference committee, to fail to meet that test. I think this bill is too minimalist in terms of its capacity to identify those major challenges that face this Nation, in terms of education, and to construct an appropriate Federal policy to move us forward in an area that will probably, more than any other, determine our Nation's status into the 21st century--the education of our people. I believe that this legislation in the conference committee lost its focus. It did not return with the balance that it had when it left this Chamber. I am particularly concerned about the issue of school construction. Admittedly, I come from a State which has experienced a dramatic increase both in new students entering our school system--40,000 to 50,000 new students every year entering the public schools of Florida-- and a State which is reaching a point of maturity where many of its older schools are requiring substantial rehabilitation. And almost all of our schools require the new technologies to bring them up to current standards of educational modernity. In this legislation, as it left the Senate several weeks ago, there was what I thought was a creative provision, which received broad support in the Senate, which would have encouraged public-private partnerships in the construction and rehabilitation of schools. It would have used a financing technique, called private facility bonds, which has been used effectively in areas such as water and sewer, transportation, and housing for public school construction. Ironically, a provision almost identical in final impact to what was contained in the Senate version is now being used for private elementary and secondary construction. But for reasons which are inexplicable to me, the conference dropped that provision and therefore will deny, through the Federal Tax Code incentives, the opportunity for many school districts that are facing enormous pressures to be able to utilize that technique as a means of building and rehabilitating schools. I hope that when we come back to this issue--and that hope is that we will return before this Congress adjourns--that the central role of adequate school facilities in achieving adequate education, and the role which the Federal Government can play creatively in helping us provide those adequate physical facilities, will be reexamined. I am also concerned, Mr. President, as to a provision which was dropped at the front door but seems to have reentered at the back door relative to block grants for Federal education. Since the 1960s, the Federal Government has focused its attention on education in three primary areas: One, civil rights; two, the at-risk student, whether that was a handicapped student, a student from a disadvantaged background, or other factors which made that student a greater educational risk and generally a more expensive student to educate than the general student population; and, third, access to higher education through a variety of Federal grants and loans. There was a provision which many of us objected to which would have provided that those carefully crafted, long-standing pillars of Federal education policy would be collapsed into block grants. I am pleased that that attack through the front door was dropped. But I am concerned that there still is in this legislation an attack through the back door. I bring your attention to page 12 of the report which outlines the legislation. And under the category of ``State Incentives For Teacher Testing And Merit Pay,'' the first section talks about State incentives through a grant program for teacher testing and merit pay. I would like to say, as an aside, personally, while I was a member of the Florida State legislature, and later as Governor, I supported concepts of teacher testing, both upon entry into the profession and while in the profession. And we established what we called a career ladder, which was a form of recognition of the superior teacher. So I am, as a matter of policy, inclined to support the principles. But what concerns me is a provision that says, under paragraph (e), ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State may use Federal education funds--to carry out [these two purposes of teacher testing and establishing a merit pay program for teachers].'' As I read this, what we are saying is that we have returned to this concept of a block grant by saying that a State, without any other constraints, because ``notwithstanding any other provision of law''--it is not limited to elementary, secondary funds, but all education funds--vocational funds, higher education funds, elementary, secondary funds, maybe even funds for specialized programs such as veterans educational benefits--that a State can collapse all of those funds into a block grant for the purposes of teacher testing and establishment of a merit pay plan. I think that is a very bad educational policy and, in and of itself, makes this conference report unacceptable. So, Mr. President, I reluctantly will oppose this legislation. I do so in the hope that when the President has exercised his stated intention to veto this legislation, and we are back to ground zero with what should the Congress do relative to a Federal role in enhancing our Nation's educational opportunities for its children and for its adults, that we will come back to this task with a new spirit of bipartisanship, with a commitment to a clear diagnosis of what are the principal shortfalls in our education system, and what the Federal role should be in attempting to overcome those deficiencies. There is no task more important to our Nation, as we face a new century, than a renewed commitment to education. It will be the key to our ability, in an increasingly globalized economy, to be able to maintain the American standard of living while we are also competitive in the world economy. The only means by which we will do so will be to assure that each American is as fully prepared to be as productive and as contributing towards our total economy and our total society as they can be because we have given them the opportunity of the best possible education. Mr. President, again, I regret that we are not able to move forward with this legislation today, but I commend the Senator from Georgia for his very genuine interest and his leadership in this area, and hope that leadership will soon be rewarded. Thank you. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, first, that Mr. Mark Williams, a congressional fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges for the balance of the debate on this conference report.

Mr. GRAHAM. Second, I ask unanimous consent that any of the time which I have been allocated but which will be unused will be returned to the minority floor leader of this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at this point in the debate, it is appropriate to ask one very simple question: Why are we here? Why have Members of the Senate spent months of their time focusing on this issue? Why, with a busy schedule, and few legislative days left this year, are we occupying the Senate's time with this bill? The answer to this question is equally simple--the most important thing the Senate can do this year is to make significant inroads in cutting youth smoking. If you accept this simple premise--that the goal of a tobacco bill should be about reducing teen smoking, then the decision on how to vote on the Coverdell amendment is clear. The amendment should be opposed. Mr. President, let me be perfectly clear. I support increased appropriations for drug enforcement and drug interdiction. I represent a State that has experienced major crises related to drug trafficking and drug use. And I know better than most, as a member of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, the importance of fighting the scourge of drugs in America. Last year, I joined my House colleague and fellow Floridian John Mica in establishing a new High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area in Central Florida. I was also an original co-sponsor of the Drug Free Communities Act. I have co-sponsored a bill with Senator Grassley that will establish a national strategy to attack money laundering. I have fought to increase funding for our counternarcotics efforts time and time again. Just next week I will be holding a field hearing in Miami on the current interdiction efforts in the Caribbean. I know how serious the drug threat is, and I have been and will be committed to doing whatever it takes to keep drugs away from our children. I support many of the measures in the Coverdell amendment. And if the United States Senate ever gets serious about addressing this issue, perhaps funding these measures through general revenues, I would support them wholeheartedly. In fact, we will have an opportunity to vote on an alternative which addresses the drug problem by authorizing funds to increases the number of border patrol agents, Coast Guard officers, and money for the Department of Defense to increase interdiction. And we will be able to augment these programs without gutting anti-tobacco efforts. Mr. President, let's stay focussed, stick to the purpose, and send a message to parents right now that we are serious about reducing teen smoking. If we adopt the Coverdell amendment, here's what happens: five million smokers will not receive smoking cessation services. Those who argue that the tobacco taxes are regressive should remember that cessation and other public health programs are targeted toward helping those who will actually pay the tax. Over 20 million children will not receive the benefits of effective counter advertising to discourage them from taking up the deadly habit of cigarette smoking. Fifty million children will not participate in school-based prevention programs. States will not have the funds to develop their own anti-smoking programs which are so vital in protecting our children. We will not have the benefit of future biomedical advancement through increased funding for NIH research. In addition, we have solid scientific evidence to suggest that if we stop kids from smoking, they may never take up the use of illicit drugs, such as cocaine and marijuana. This ``gateway effect'' has been well documented. Let's look at the findings of the Surgeon General's 1994 report, ``Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People''--ninety-eight percent of all cocaine users smoked cigarettes first. Among 12 to 17 year olds--those who smoke are 114 times more likely to use marijuana and 32 times more likely to use cocaine. By contrast, less than one percent of those children who never smoked end up using cocaine or marijuana. Mr. President, if we are interested in cutting drug use among our children, we should pass this tobacco bill now, and leave the funding to States and public health intact, and then come back and fund the real anti-drug initiatives in the Coverdell proposal and the Democratic alternative amendment. There is simply no reason why we cannot and should not do both. Our kids are worth it. This is simply the greatest opportunity, and perhaps our only opportunity to take a huge step toward reducing youth smoking. This bill is our best chance to have a significant impact on the Nation's public health. We shouldn't blow it. Mr. President, those who attempt to gut this bill through funding extraneous programs--are going to be on the wrong side of history. For all of these reasons, I urge the rejection of the Coverdell amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I look forward at the appropriate time to discuss the amendment of the Senator from Georgia because I agree with his premise that there is a relationship between tobacco smoking and the use of drugs. I have spent a great deal of my time in public office trying to increase our ability to deal with illicit use of drugs, both in terms of effective enforcement at all levels of government and those things that will reduce the likelihood of persons desiring to use drugs. Let me say the most fundamental relationship between the tobacco issue that we debate today and the amendment of the Senator from Georgia is that virtually no one starts with the use of illicit drugs. Tobacco is the gateway to the use of illicit drugs. So our ability, by effective legislation or otherwise, to substantially reduce the number of persons who commence the process of experimentation, use and then addiction to tobacco will make one of, if not the most, fundamental contributions to the reduction of the use of illicit hard drugs. That is an issue that we will have an opportunity to discuss in more detail later. My concern today is a series of ads that are being run, ads that are being run either under the specific sponsorship of the tobacco industry or by organizations which we know are supported by the tobacco industry. Typical of these ads is one in which there is a lady, a waitress who is looking into a television camera and is stating how much her cost of smoking will increase if legislation such as that proposed by the Senate Commerce Committee were to become the law. There are other ads that make the same point through other appealing messages. There is a fundamental error in those ads. There is a fundamental deception. There is the latest example of the manipulation for which this industry has become so well known. What is that error? What is that fraud? What is that manipulation? It is the assumption that the status quo is an option. It is the assumption that we can roll back the events of the last several years and go back to 1970 and everything will be as it was then; that that lady in the ad will not be threatened with the possibility of higher prices for her cigarettes. The fact is that the status quo is not an option. There are two basic options that are before us as we continue this debate, and I think that it is important that we reassert what our real alternatives are. Our alternatives are either comprehensive, and I believe as Senator Chafee and Senator Harkin and I have believed for many months, that it also must be bipartisan, health-oriented national legislation. That is one alternative. The other alternative is not the status quo. The other alternative is a continuation of the pattern of State-by-State litigation, a pattern which has already increased the price of cigarettes in America between 17 to 20 cents per pack to pay for the settlements that have been reached thus far in only four States--Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota. It is projected that if the increase in cigarettes that will be a result of the other 46 States successfully pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry is at the same per capita level as these first four States, Mr. President, that the cost per pack will go up by an additional dollar or to a level higher than that which is being proposed by the Senate Commerce Committee. So the option that we have is not one of whether there is going to be an increase in the price of cigarettes; the question is whether it will come through a comprehensive, bipartisan, health-oriented national legislation, or whether it will come by a series of State-by-State litigations augmented by the kinds of litigations that are now being brought by Blue Cross-Blue Shield as an example of insurance carrier litigation, being brought by labor unions on behalf of their members and, Mr. President, I believe eventually will be brought by the Federal Government to secure its appropriate compensation for the additional cost that it has paid for tobacco-related illnesses through programs such as Medicare, the Veterans' Administration, CHAMPUS--the health care program for military personnel and their dependents--and a variety of other programs in which the Federal Government is either the total or a substantial contributor to their financing. The choice is either we do this through comprehensive, bipartisan, health-oriented national legislation, or it occurs on a State-by-State, litigation-by-litigation basis. My personal feeling is that by every criteria that we have used to assess what is the public interest, that the public interest would be better served by a comprehensive, bipartisan, health-oriented national legislation. What are some of those interests? Our most fundamental interest, the issue that has brought us here today and for the last several days and will for several more to come, has been our concern over teenage smoking. We know that every day 3,000 American youth, under the age of 18, commence the process that will eventually lead to the regular use of tobacco. We know that of that 3,000, that a third--1,000--will become so addicted to tobacco that they will die, that they will die prematurely of a tobacco-related affliction. That is the fundamental objective of this legislation, to reduce this unnecessary carnage of America's youth and adult population because of the continuation of a youthful introduction to tobacco. Which of the two approaches is most likely to achieve the objective of reducing youth smoking? We know some things, Mr. President, as to what is the effective combination of initiatives. We know that the most effective plan will be a broad-based, comprehensive public health- oriented plan. It will include items such as the funding of smoking cessation programs and the funding of education programs on the consequences of the use of tobacco. It will include limitations on marketing and promotion. It will include penalties against the industry and individual companies which fail to meet national standards for the reduction of teenage smoking. It will include, and probably most significantly, a substantial increase in the price of cigarettes, because it is that increase in price that will have the greatest deterrent effect on the use of cigarettes. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that in the initial stages of an increase in price, that for every 10-percent increase in price, there is a 7-percent reduction in use. Those relationships begin to change as you reach higher levels of price increases. But the legislation that the Senator from Arizona has presented to us is projected to have, by the price alone, a reduction in teenage use of in the range of 40 to 50 percent. It is also important, Mr. President, that that price be instituted on a shock basis. If the price increase is gradual, incremental, drop by drop, then it is more likely to be absorbed, become the norm, and set the foundation for acceptance of the next increase. But if that price increase is dramatic--is imposed quickly--it will have the greatest affect in terms of achieving our objective of reducing teenage smoking. It is obvious that on all of those counts, comprehensive, bipartisan, public health-oriented national legislation will better achieve our objective of reducing teenage smoking than will the pattern of State by State, litigant by litigant courtroom action that will be the alternative to a national, comprehensive, bipartisan public health- oriented resolution of this issue. On the standard of enforcement, much is made in these ads that the tobacco industry is promoting that there will be a burgeoning of black- market sales if there is a substantial increase in the price. The fact is that by a legislative settlement--which among other things will provide the funds for those areas of enhanced enforcement that may be necessary, a national settlement that can contain provisions for strengthening our enforcement, a national settlement that will result in less variation State to State in terms of the price of cigarettes, and therefore less likelihood of black-market sales domestically within the United States--that a national legislative settlement will reduce the potential of black-market activities to a substantially greater degree than the alternative of State-by-State litigation. We also know that, on the issue of tobacco farmers, there is great recognition of the necessity to provide some transition. That transition is contained in every serious piece of legislation that has been introduced in the national Congress. There will be a debate over which of those alternatives is preferred, but the fact that it is a recognized part of a national, comprehensive, bipartisan health-oriented tobacco resolution is unanimously agreed to. But, Mr. President, that has not been included in the State-by-State settlements, and will not likely be included. Only a relatively small number of States are directly affected by the issue of tobacco farmers and, therefore, could not be expected to include, in their settlements with the tobacco industry, funding for tobacco farmers. If there is going to be a transition, it has to be done at the national level, not at a State-by-State level. So the interest of that constituency and that important part of this overall complex issue will be much better served by national legislation than they will be by a State-by-State settlement. Finally, having a rational distribution of the funds, yes, this is going to raise a substantial amount of money. It may raise more money on the State-by-State basis, it may impose higher costs on the industry, and eventually on the users of this product than national legislation, but in either event there will be a substantial amount of funds raised by either national legislation or by State-by-State litigation. But it is at the national level that we will have a better likelihood of being able to allocate the funds to important programs, such as research in our national health institutes so that we will learn more about the consequences of past tobacco use and an effective means of avoiding such use in the future. It is less likely that the States will be equitably treated through a series of State-by-State matters as opposed to doing it on a national basis. There will not be the funds likely to be available for effective counteradvertising, which will require a national program just as the national program that the Federal Government is now underwriting as it relates to advertising against the use of illicit drugs. So, Mr. President, based on our principal objective, which is the reduction of youth smoking, and other important subissues of this current effort, including appropriate use of the funds, enforcement against black marketing, the effect on tobacco farmers, it is much more likely that we will achieve our objectives through a national legislative settlement than what is the real alternative, which is for us to do nothing and then allow the course of action which is already in place, State by State, private, soon to be, I hope, Federal litigation against the tobacco industries to be the alternative. So, Mr. President, as we conclude this week's debate, I hope as we return next week we will be prepared to focus on what the real options are and get the business of America done and stop the carnage of American children that is resulting every hour we delay in this effort to mitigate the carnage of American youth that occurs as they take up the use of tobacco. Privilege of the Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Jason Westin of my staff be allowed floor privileges for the remainder of the consideration of this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator, I agree with your statement. We have one principal objective with this legislation, and that is to reduce teenage smoking, to reduce this unconscionable level of death and damage that is inflicted upon our young people by their early addiction to tobacco. There are other issues that are being suggested--from reforming the tax law to an enhanced enforcement effort against illicit drugs--which are all important issues, and many of us have supported and advocated and led the charge on those issues on other days and in other forums. Our concern is--and I will not impugn the motives of any of the advocates of those other provisions--that some outside, and maybe a few inside, this Chamber would be pleased at the objection of these ``tantalizing but extraneous issues'' because they would see them as a means of delay, obfuscation, and, eventually, defeat of comprehensive national legislation. What stuns me is that they don't also see what the alternative is. The alternative is not that defeat here will mean the American public will throw up its hands and say, ``I guess we have to accept the fact that 125 American young people will take up smoking every hour of every day of the 365 days of the year.'' That will not be the alternative. The alternative will be that the American public, having disdained of our ability to deal with this problem, will go to their States, will go to their labor unions, will urge their insurance carriers to enter the fray, as they have in other States, and we will have a 50-State shootout in the courts on this issue. We will move toward our objective, but not nearly as effectively as if we accept the responsibility and the opportunity to probably make the greatest contribution to the enhancement of public health of Americans that has occurred in this century by the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity. I strongly support the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As the Senator from Alaska just stated, I was one of the 65 Senators who voted for it when we last passed it. I think it is very important that we pass a Nuclear Waste Policy Act as part of a national effort to assure that nuclear energy will continue to play a significant part in America's energy future. This importance is underscored by the contribution which nuclear energy can make to the United States meeting its global warming commitments without incurring major economic disruption in the rest of our economy. I am concerned, however, Mr. President, that I do not believe what we are about this afternoon is serious legislation but, rather, is a subterfuge. If I felt that by invoking cloture today and then passing it today or tomorrow we would move toward the adoption of the National Waste Policy Act, I would be a strong supporter. But the Speaker of the House, through a statement of an honorable Member of the House, has indicated that it is not his intention to take this legislation up in the House of Representatives. Therefore, unless we are willing to adopt precisely what the House has submitted and send it directly to the President for signature, any amendment that we might consider would have the effect of dooming this legislation. I am also concerned, Mr. President, that the effect of this would not only be to send the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to sure death in the House of Representatives, but it would also kill the tobacco bill here in the U.S. Senate. Without a unanimous consent agreement that assures that we would return immediately to the tobacco legislation, I am unwilling to take the risk of removing it as the business before the Senate and substituting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as much as I support that legislation. So for those reasons, I will vote against invoking cloture.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator from Alaska or the Senator from Idaho yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. I have no time. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to ask questions for no longer than 2 minutes without counting against either side.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in light of what the Speaker announced were his intentions, is it your understanding that if we made any amendment to this legislation and therefore caused it to have to return to the House, that we would essentially be defeating the legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator not agree, in order to deal with the statement that the Speaker made as well as his actions over the past period in frustrating the adoption of a Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we would be well advised before we take up this cloture vote to adopt by unanimous consent agreement that no amendments would be in order to H.R. 1270, thus to assure that the bill would, if passed, go directly to the President?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from the state that launched the Mercury astronaut pioneers into space, sent Apollo astronauts to the moon, and has hosted numerous space shuttle launches since 1981, it is a tremendous privilege to lead the U.S. Senate in recognizing May 21 as ``International Space Day.'' Our nation's exciting adventure in space began just over forty years ago, with the launch of the Explorer I satellite on January 31, 1958. The celebration of this anniversary gave us cause to look back at America's four decades in space. ``International Space Day'' gives us a chance to look forward and assess how to seize the space opportunities of the future. Mr. President, forty years after we launched our first satellite and nearly thirty years since Neil Armstrong took mankind's first steps on the lunar surface, Americans remain captivated by the exploration of space. Students across the nation eagerly study past achievements and future adventures in space exploration. In Florida, tourists flock to the Kennedy Space Center on Cape Canaveral to see the famed launch pads and rockets that have boosted man into space. Right here in Washington, the National Air and Space Museum, National Space Society, and the aerospace industry have put space right on Congress' doorstep. ``International Space Day'' is an appropriate occasion to reflect on how our exploration and utilization of space dramatically affects our day-to-day lives. It is especially timely this week, when the breakdown of the Galaxy Four satellite has wreaked havoc in our nation's telecommunications sector. Many of us have constituents who were unable to listen to National Public Radio's reports on this week's floor debate on comprehensive tobacco legislation. Thousands of Americans have been inconvenienced because their pagers do not work. Doctors, businesses, television viewers and radio listeners--virtually everyone in our society--have been affected. Relatively few Americans have had the opportunity to escape the Earth's atmosphere and gravity, but space affects all of us. Galaxy Four is just one example of how critical the utilization of space is to our economy. We are on the brink of a new frontier in commercial space activity, with almost weekly launches of new communications satellites and the most competitive space launch market in decades. In 1998, the Senate will have a unique opportunity to remove barriers that impede U.S. companies in the exploration of this new frontier. U.S. Senator Connie Mack and I introduced the Commercial Space Act in the Senate last fall and we hope to see it passed soon. Mr. President, this is an exciting time to be discussing space issues in the U.S. Congress. At NASA's Kennedy Space Center--the nation's premiere launch base--the space shuttle continues to faithfully serve our manned space program. An international team of engineers and astronauts is assembling a new space station. In 1997 and early 1998, the Mars Pathfinder blazed a four-wheel drive trail on the Red Planet and the launch of the Lunar Prospector marked our return to the moon. In October, my colleague John Glenn of Ohio will return to space after thirty-seven years on Earth. VentureStar is under development as our nation's space vehicle of the future. And space tourism--featuring space planes that operate from traditional airports--is becoming more and more of a likelihood. I hope these developments inspire young Americans to develop the science, math, and engineering expertise that our nation needs to maintain its leadership in space. Congress should encourage efforts like that of the U.S. Space Foundation's Mission Home, a program that brings together space societies and aerospace companies to educate communities all over the nation about our exciting future in space. Mr. President, Disneyland will rededicate its Tomorrowland on Friday--forty-three years after it first inspired young adventurers to aim beyond the stratosphere. I will depend on all 100 members of this legislative body to help make sure that the United States is actively preparing for its tommorowland by keeping our nation on the forefront of the exploration, utilization, and commercialization of space today. Working together, we can ensure that every day is space day in the U.S. Senate.