Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have just been subjected in the U.S. Senate to what I think could appropriately be described as a filibuster--4 hours of wandering discussion on an amendment that is now before the Senate. During those 4 hours of that filibuster, 500 American youth under the age of 18 commenced their first use of tobacco products. One-third of those 500 American youth during that 4-hour filibuster who started to use tobacco will die, die prematurely of a tobacco-related affliction. I have heard as I walked through the Chamber during this 4 hours mocking comments: Does anybody believe that we are really here to try to reduce teenage smoking? Does anybody really feel we are here to reduce teenage smoking? The answer is yes, we are here to reduce teenage smoking. That is the only legitimate reason that we can be here. Anyone who does not start their debate by a clear statement of their commitment to that objective has debased this national debate about the future of tobacco and the youth of America. In 4 hours, 500 American youth have taken up smoking. Since May 20 of 1997, 1 year ago, the number is 1,095,000 American youth under the age of 18 have taken up the use of tobacco, and 365,000 of those American youth who have taken up tobacco in the last 1 year will die prematurely of a tobacco-related affliction. It is to them that this debate is directed. Mr. President, the best public health advisers available to us have recommended that we set as a goal a 65-percent reduction in teenage smoking over the next 10 years. That is a challenging goal, but it is an attainable goal. It is a goal which is going to stretch us in the political community. It is going to stretch those in the health, the education, and especially the families of America to their best in terms of beginning to attack this scourge which, as my colleague from Rhode Island has just indicated, is a growing scourge of teenage smoking. I believe that an important part of achieving that goal of a 65- percent reduction is to raise the price of cigarettes to as high a level as can be achieved without inducing other negative consequences, and to do that as quickly as possible. For that reason, I am a cosponsor of this amendment which would raise the price to what has been recommended by the public health community, $1.50 per pack, and to do so in 3 years. This is consistent with legislation which I have cosponsored with Senators Chafee and Harkin. It is not the only thing we need to do. We also need to have a comprehensive attack against teenage smoking. That comprehensive attack needs to include weapons such as restrictions on marketing and promotion--no more Marlboro Man, no more Joe Camel, appealing to our young people. It needs to include effective cessation efforts in the schools through public methods of communication. It needs to include look-back provisions which will surcharge the industry and individual companies if they fail to meet the nationally established goals for reduction of teenage smoking. All of those are important. But the reality is that the single most important part of achieving the goal of a 65-percent reduction in teenage smoking is to get the price to as high a level as reasonable as quickly as possible. The best estimates are that 85 percent of the effectiveness in terms of reducing teenage smoking will come through monetary means. The other 15 percent will be the softer, more psychological efforts at education and restraint on promotion and advertising. It is appropriate that we should be using the monetary means as the principal force to achieve the goal of a 65-percent reduction. Some of those who have spoken, either spoken directly or spoken through the form of very elongated questions, have inferred that there is something wrong with inserting the economic component into this debate. The fact is, there already is a substantial economic component. As Members know, four States, including my own, have reached very significant settlements with the tobacco industry, in which the industry essentially admitted that their costs in terms of cost to treat people with addictions related to their use of tobacco are in the billions of dollars. This is not a cost-free decision if we do nothing. If we do nothing, we accept the fact that we will continue having the American taxpayers pay these enormous annual costs to treat the illnesses of people who have been induced to smoke tobacco. It is also appropriate in this era of free-market economies, where we are looking to laws such as supply and demand rather than laws of regulation as a mean of affecting human behavior, that we insert as the cornerstone of this legislation a significant economic disincentive for people to utilize tobacco products, a disincentive which we know will have its primary effect on younger smokers, smokers to whom discretionary income is more limited, smokers who are less physically addicted to the use of tobacco. Mr. President, for those who will oppose this amendment, I issue this challenge. If you are not prepared to accept the goal of a 65-percent reduction in teenage smoking, then what is your goal and why are you prepared to support a lessened goal, recognizing that every percentage point below 65 percent means that you are consigning thousands of American young people each year to the scourge, the cost, the social issues related to the use of tobacco, and one-third of those who start the process will end up dying prematurely because of a tobacco-related affliction? If you are not prepared to accept the 65-percent goal, defend an alternative. If you accept the 65-percent goal but are unwilling to accept those things which are necessary to achieve it, then what is your alternative? What will be the additional items that you will substitute for what the best experts in the public health community say is required to achieve that 65-percent goal? We know that some of those noneconomic factors are already under assault, such as the promotion in advertising. So it becomes even more important that we adopt the amendment, as offered by Senator Kennedy and others, which will raise the price to the $1.50 level.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Miss Susan Goodman of my staff be accorded floor privileges during the consideration of S. 1415.

Mr. GRAHAM. Also having expired during that 10 minutes I have been speaking, have been 41 American youth who have taken up smoking during the time I have been speaking; 14 of those will expire prematurely because of tobacco-related affliction. It is to them that this debate and this issue is dedicated.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart and bearing the sorrow that Floridians and Americans everywhere feel at the death of a national treasure--Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Marjory Stoneman Douglas is and will always be the ``Mother of the Everglades.'' That title was made official in 1993, when President Clinton presented here with the Presidential Medal of Freedom--our nation's most prestigious civilian honor. Over 130 years ago, upon meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe for the first time, President Abraham Lincoln greeted the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin with this salutation: ``So this is the little woman who started the great war.'' Marjory Stoneman Douglas was equally influential in her own time. She was the feisty woman who started the great effort to save the Everglades from mankind's abuse and neglect. She was born on April 7, 1880 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Perhaps it was this connection to ``The Land of Ten Thousand Lakes'' that was responsible for her intense passion for environmental preservation. She graduated from Wellesley College just over two decades later with the prophetic title of ``Class Orator.'' These two characteristics--a love of nature and a powerful determination to make her voice heard--would soon come together to the benefit of the Florida Everglades. In 1915, Marjory arrived in Miami and joined the staff of the Miami Herald. With the exception of a brief stint as a Red Cross worker during World War I, she spent the next eighty-three years working to save the Everglades from destruction. When Marjory Stoneman Douglas arrived in South Florida, many people thought of the Everglades as nothing more than another Florida swamp. Indeed, Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, who served from 1905 to 1909, had proposed draining the Everglades to reclaim the land there. Marjory did not brook ignorance about the Everglades. Instead, she poured time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears into re-educating the people of Florida about the crowning jewel in Florida's collection of environmental treasures. Long before scientists became alarmed about the effects on the natural ecosystems of south Florida, she was taking public officials to task for destroying wetlands, eliminating the sheet flow of water across the Everglades, and upsetting the natural cycles upon which the entire South Florida ecosystem depends. Marjory's oratory and hustle produced tangible accomplishments. Her crusade to win federal protection for the wetlands scored a major victory when President Harry Truman dedicated Everglades National Park in 1947. That same year, she published the work that would jump-start the modern era of Everglades restoration: The Everglades: River of Grass. To this day, that tome stands as the definitive descriptive of the national treasure she fought so hard to protect. Visitors travel thousands of miles to see the Everglades. Scientists and naturalists spend entire lifetimes studying the Everglades' diverse habitats and unique collection of plants and animal life. Today, public officials from every ideological persuasion and geographic location line up to support efforts to protect the Everglades. None of this would have been possible without Marjory Stoneman Douglas' Herculean efforts. She supplemented her hard work and determination with a disarming candor. Some people will remember that Marjory co-authored a 1920's anti-gangster play entitled Storm Warnings. That title was well-suited to the personality of its author. She would frequently blow in like a Florida summer thunderstorm and give you her thoughts in no uncertain terms, leaving you dazed and drained but unmistakably sure of her intentions. When I was a state legislator in the late 1960's, Marjory came to Tallahassee to speak to the Dade County delegation. She conveyed one simple, blunt message: we would safeguard the health of the Everglades and if we didn't, we would all spend an uncomfortable afterlife in hell. I took those words to heart. When I was Governor from 1979 to 1987, Marjory and I teamed up to launch a campaign to safeguard the Florida Everglades. It is an effort that has attracted broad, bipartisan support over the years--a testament to Marjory's persuasive powers. In 1997, I joined Senator Connie Mack and U.S. Representative Peter Deutsch in introducing legislation to name over 1.3 million acres of the Everglades after its modern saviour. President Clinton signed that legislation in mid-November, and I helped to dedicate the ``Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness'' on December 4, 1997--Everglades National Park's 50th Birthday. Marjory's ashes will be scattered over that wilderness area. Marjory Stoneman Douglas was a friend and mentor to me for many years. I will miss her greatly. I want to conclude today by reading from John Rothchild's introduction to her autobiography. Recalling her appearance at a 1973 public meeting in Everglades City, Mr. Rothchild offered this apt description: Mrs. Douglas was half the size of her fellow speakers and she wore huge dark glasses, which along with the huge floppy hat made her look like Scarlet O'Hara as played by Igor Stravinsky. When she spoke, everybody stopped slapping [mosquitoes] and more or less came to order. She reminded us all of our responsibility to nature. Her voice had the sobering effect of a one-room schoolmarm's. The tone itself seemed to tame the rowdiest of the local stone crabbers, developers, and the lawyers on both sides. I wonder if it didn't also intimidate the mosquitoes. Marjory Stoneman Douglas always got your attention--she was the most eloquent spokesperson that the Everglades will ever have. The embattled wetland lost is ``Mother'' last week, but we must keep her memory and legacy alive by continuing our efforts to preserve the Everglades for future generations of Floridians and Americans.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Helms, Lott, Mack, and nearly twenty other Senators in introducing the Cuban Solidarity Act. This bill will capitalize on the historic opportunity provided by Pope John Paul II's visit to Cuba this past January. It provides for $100 million in humanitarian assistance directly to the Cuban people over four years, and does so in a way that will strengthen the Catholic Church and other independent organizations in Cuba. We must seize this opportunity to help our Cuban brothers and sisters who have suffered under Castro's brutal rule for far too long. Communism has collapsed around the world, and the only countries that maintain this economic sytsem--Cuba and North Korea--are crumbling under their own weight. This failed system has created shortages of food and medicine, and Castro has denied the basic freedoms that we take for granted to millions of ordinary Cubans. In addition to providing humanitarian assistance to Cuba, this bill also directs the administration to expedite the licensing of sales of medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. Since 1992, the embargo has been lifted on the sale of medicines, medical equipment, and medical supplies to Cuba. While Castro continues to claim that the United States is responsible for Cubans' lack of access to much needed medicines, the truth is that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the Cuban people can get the medical supplies denied them by the Castro government. Pope John Paul II called the world's attention to the suffering of the Cuban people during his visit to Cuba in January. I feel the time is right to make assistance to oppressed Cubans more easily available through organizations such as the Catholic Church and other independent groups. Targeting additional aid in this matter will have three important effects. First, it will provide humanitarian assistance directly to the Cuban people who have suffered under communism. Second, it will strengthen the position of the Catholic Church as a more independent, viable institution in Cuba. Finally, it will help to undermine Castro's policy of denying food and medicine as a means of political control. Pope John Paul II asked the world to open up to Cuba, and asked Cuba to open itself to the world. This bill will begin that process by providing humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people. We hope that Castro will respond by opening Cuba to the world. Just yesterday, Cuban Cardinal Ortega expressed concern that the Castro regime was not making an effort to open Cuba to the world-- specifically regarding the political prisoners that continue to fill Cuban jails. Four of these political prisoners are in particularly desperate condition--Marta Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne, and Rene Gomez Manzano--and Castro has refused appeals by the Pope and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to release them on humanitarian grounds. In fact, Marta Beatriz Roque is very ill with breast cancer and is being denied medical attention in jail. I hope that these political prisoners, as well as thousands of others, live to see a time when expressing one's political ideas does not mean a death sentence. This legislation will provide an upwelling of support for the advocates of freedom and human rights in Cuba. A number of periodic reports on exploitative labor conditions and the plight of political prisoners in Cuba will help bring the world's attention to the reality of Castro's oppression. Democracy efforts in Cuba will be bolstered through pro-active U.S. support for the Cuban opposition. Direct mail delivery from the U.S. to Cuba and additional Radio and TV Marti broadcasts will allow the Cuban people to receive uncensored news from the outside world, breaking Catro's monopoly on the dissemination of information. Let us not forget that U.S. support for the democracy movements of Eastern Europe helped millions of people there win the freedom to express their ideas, live without fear, and create better lives for their children. We should not turn our backs on the Cuban people now, when they need our help more than ever. The Castro government does not need food and medicine: the Cuban people do. We must ensure that our aid does not go to those who torture and kill. The Cuban Solidarity Act works to give food and medicine to those who are forgotten by Castro's regime--the poor mothers who need prenatal care, the children who need bread and milk, the elderly who die of easily curable diseases. Mr. President, the 11 million Cubans imprisoned by Castro's reign of terror are counting on us to enact this vital and historic piece of legislation. I hope that all of my colleagues will join Senators Helms, Lott, Mack, myself, and nearly twenty others in supporting this effort to provide a lifeline to the Cuban people.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the ``Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.'' It is a key step forward in Florida's long battle to preserve our beautiful coastal and marine ecosystems. Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because it poses a tremendous threat to one of our state's greatest natural and economic resources-- our coastal environment. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife draw millions of tourists each year from around the globe. Tourism directly or indirectly supports millions of jobs all across Florida, and the travel industry generates billions of dollars in economic activity every year. The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas in the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove forests and seagrass beds, are an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries because they support the nurseries for the most commercially harvested fish. Perhaps the most environmentally delicate regions in the Gulf, estuaries could be damaged beyond repair by even a relatively small oil spill. Over the years, we have met with some success in our effort to protect Florida's OCS. In 1995, the lawsuit surrounding the cancellation of the leases around the Florida Keys was settled, removing the immediate threat of oil and gas drilling from what is an extremely sensitive area. In June of 1997, Senator Mack and I introduced the Florida Coast Protection Act to cancel six leases in an area 17 miles off the coast of Pensacola. This bill would have provided leaseholders with the absolute right to just compensation from the federal government in order to recover their investment in these leases, while simultaneously protecting the Florida coastline that is so critical to our economy. Luckily, it was never necessary. Less than a week after we introduced our legislation, Mobil Oil announced that it was ending its drilling operation off the Northwest Florida coast and cancelling its exploratory leases. While Mobil's action did not completely eliminate the threats posed by oil and gas drilling, it did mean that the residents of Florida's Gulf Coast faced one fewer environmental catastrophe-in-the-making. The Florida delegation has also been successful in blocking other attempts to search for energy resources off our state's precious coastline. We've worked--and will continue to work--in a united, bipartisan fashion to maintain the federal moratorium on drilling in sensitive coastal areas. Mr. President, the bill that Senator Boxer has introduced today will provide further protection to all coastal states that have taken action to prevent offshore oil drilling by issuing a state moratorium on oil, gas, or mineral exploration, development, or production within state waters. Florida will benefit greatly from this bill, and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Helms, Lott, Mack, and nearly twenty other Senators in introducing the Cuban Solidarity Act. This bill will capitalize on the historic opportunity provided by Pope John Paul II's visit to Cuba this past January. It provides for $100 million in humanitarian assistance directly to the Cuban people over four years, and does so in a way that will strengthen the Catholic Church and other independent organizations in Cuba. We must seize this opportunity to help our Cuban brothers and sisters who have suffered under Castro's brutal rule for far too long. Communism has collapsed around the world, and the only countries that maintain this economic sytsem--Cuba and North Korea--are crumbling under their own weight. This failed system has created shortages of food and medicine, and Castro has denied the basic freedoms that we take for granted to millions of ordinary Cubans. In addition to providing humanitarian assistance to Cuba, this bill also directs the administration to expedite the licensing of sales of medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. Since 1992, the embargo has been lifted on the sale of medicines, medical equipment, and medical supplies to Cuba. While Castro continues to claim that the United States is responsible for Cubans' lack of access to much needed medicines, the truth is that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the Cuban people can get the medical supplies denied them by the Castro government. Pope John Paul II called the world's attention to the suffering of the Cuban people during his visit to Cuba in January. I feel the time is right to make assistance to oppressed Cubans more easily available through organizations such as the Catholic Church and other independent groups. Targeting additional aid in this matter will have three important effects. First, it will provide humanitarian assistance directly to the Cuban people who have suffered under communism. Second, it will strengthen the position of the Catholic Church as a more independent, viable institution in Cuba. Finally, it will help to undermine Castro's policy of denying food and medicine as a means of political control. Pope John Paul II asked the world to open up to Cuba, and asked Cuba to open itself to the world. This bill will begin that process by providing humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people. We hope that Castro will respond by opening Cuba to the world. Just yesterday, Cuban Cardinal Ortega expressed concern that the Castro regime was not making an effort to open Cuba to the world-- specifically regarding the political prisoners that continue to fill Cuban jails. Four of these political prisoners are in particularly desperate condition--Marta Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne, and Rene Gomez Manzano--and Castro has refused appeals by the Pope and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to release them on humanitarian grounds. In fact, Marta Beatriz Roque is very ill with breast cancer and is being denied medical attention in jail. I hope that these political prisoners, as well as thousands of others, live to see a time when expressing one's political ideas does not mean a death sentence. This legislation will provide an upwelling of support for the advocates of freedom and human rights in Cuba. A number of periodic reports on exploitative labor conditions and the plight of political prisoners in Cuba will help bring the world's attention to the reality of Castro's oppression. Democracy efforts in Cuba will be bolstered through pro-active U.S. support for the Cuban opposition. Direct mail delivery from the U.S. to Cuba and additional Radio and TV Marti broadcasts will allow the Cuban people to receive uncensored news from the outside world, breaking Catro's monopoly on the dissemination of information. Let us not forget that U.S. support for the democracy movements of Eastern Europe helped millions of people there win the freedom to express their ideas, live without fear, and create better lives for their children. We should not turn our backs on the Cuban people now, when they need our help more than ever. The Castro government does not need food and medicine: the Cuban people do. We must ensure that our aid does not go to those who torture and kill. The Cuban Solidarity Act works to give food and medicine to those who are forgotten by Castro's regime--the poor mothers who need prenatal care, the children who need bread and milk, the elderly who die of easily curable diseases. Mr. President, the 11 million Cubans imprisoned by Castro's reign of terror are counting on us to enact this vital and historic piece of legislation. I hope that all of my colleagues will join Senators Helms, Lott, Mack, myself, and nearly twenty others in supporting this effort to provide a lifeline to the Cuban people.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the ``Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.'' It is a key step forward in Florida's long battle to preserve our beautiful coastal and marine ecosystems. Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because it poses a tremendous threat to one of our state's greatest natural and economic resources-- our coastal environment. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife draw millions of tourists each year from around the globe. Tourism directly or indirectly supports millions of jobs all across Florida, and the travel industry generates billions of dollars in economic activity every year. The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas in the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove forests and seagrass beds, are an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries because they support the nurseries for the most commercially harvested fish. Perhaps the most environmentally delicate regions in the Gulf, estuaries could be damaged beyond repair by even a relatively small oil spill. Over the years, we have met with some success in our effort to protect Florida's OCS. In 1995, the lawsuit surrounding the cancellation of the leases around the Florida Keys was settled, removing the immediate threat of oil and gas drilling from what is an extremely sensitive area. In June of 1997, Senator Mack and I introduced the Florida Coast Protection Act to cancel six leases in an area 17 miles off the coast of Pensacola. This bill would have provided leaseholders with the absolute right to just compensation from the federal government in order to recover their investment in these leases, while simultaneously protecting the Florida coastline that is so critical to our economy. Luckily, it was never necessary. Less than a week after we introduced our legislation, Mobil Oil announced that it was ending its drilling operation off the Northwest Florida coast and cancelling its exploratory leases. While Mobil's action did not completely eliminate the threats posed by oil and gas drilling, it did mean that the residents of Florida's Gulf Coast faced one fewer environmental catastrophe-in-the-making. The Florida delegation has also been successful in blocking other attempts to search for energy resources off our state's precious coastline. We've worked--and will continue to work--in a united, bipartisan fashion to maintain the federal moratorium on drilling in sensitive coastal areas. Mr. President, the bill that Senator Boxer has introduced today will provide further protection to all coastal states that have taken action to prevent offshore oil drilling by issuing a state moratorium on oil, gas, or mineral exploration, development, or production within state waters. Florida will benefit greatly from this bill, and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am delighted to recognize and congratulate a group of exemplary citizens upon their induction into the 1998 Dr. Nan S. Hutchinson Senior Hall of Fame. These men and women have each given a great gift to their communities--they have given of themselves. Arnold Abbott, 73, works everyday to fulfill his self-appointed mission to feed and help the homeless on the streets of Broward County. He also organized a small, dedicated core of volunteers to assist him in finding clothes, counseling and living arrangements, and to reunite the homeless with their family members. Ruth Forbes, 76, began her work of community service in 1993 with the Area Agency on Aging's Advisory Council. In her time there, she has held the positions of Legislative Chair, Vice Chair, and Chairperson. In addition to improving the lives of those in her own age group, she also aids disadvantaged children. Arnold & Joann Lanner, 76 and 79, respectively, work with the ``I Am Somebody'' program at elementary schools. This program is aimed at increasing students' self esteem. In addition, they have raised over $120,000 for the Hepburn Center, an intergenerational, community-based organization that provides after-school care and organizes activities for the elderly. Evelyn Jones Lewis, 70, began her volunteer work when she was appointed to serve on the Florida Advisory Council on Aging. Since then, she has been active in urging Congress to pass legislation that would improve the ever-changing nutritional and transportation needs of the elderly. Claire F. Mitchel, 76, is truly an asset to the elderly community because she promotes acceptance and celebration of the aging process. She promotes these values in work with organizations like the Rape Crisis Center, Women in Distress and the Older Women's League. Estella Mae Moriarty, 62, exemplifies the true meaning of altruism by embracing foster-care children of all ages who have been abandoned, abused or neglected. Realizing that children need a permanent home in the developing stages of their lives, she co-founded the SOS Children's Village, which provides care and comfort for children in distress. Lily Ann Olfern, 68, is involved with a telephone service bank to build a public safety building. Thanks to her many hours on the phone, the new facility will be opening in Davie next year. She also bags toys for children on Christmas, feeds the homeless on Thanksgiving, and teaches senior citizens how to avoid various scam operations. Reuben Sperber, 90, came to Florida to retire. However, he has worked just as hard during his twenty years in this community as while he was in the workforce. Over the years, Reuben has served in his temple, given of his time at the Margate General Hospital, and become one of the most respected members of the Alzheimer's Family Center's Board of Directors. Jacob Statemann, 76, has dedicated his time to the Southeast Focal Point Senior Center in Hollywood for over 10 years. At the Center he has taught classes ranging from current events to foreign language, and he has never hesitated to organize holiday events or assist other classes that need help. He also leads a senior choral group at HUD housing. Ira Subin, 83, spends much of his time and efforts helping the Area Agency on Aging's Advisory Council plan social events and fundraisers. His advocacy for the Seniors for Seniors Dollar Drive, along with matching funds that the program has received from the state, has substantially increased the quality of services that the Area Agency on Aging can provide. Mr. President, all of these outstanding seniors have diligently and selflessly given of their time and energy to make Broward County a better place for all its residents. Florida is very fortunate to have these inspiring senior citizens who give so much to our communities. I congratulate them today and wish for them many more productive and healthy years.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I submit the bill and ask for its immediate referral.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, along with Senators Chafee, Johnson, Grassley, and Harkin, I will be introducing today the Nursing Home Patient Protection Act. This is legislation to protect our Nation's seniors from indiscriminate patient dumping from nursing homes. Approximately one month 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 had called home for the last four years. At least that's what her son Nelson and daughter-in-law Gina feared when officials at the Rehabilitation and Health Care 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 month, the real story far exceeded their worst fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent eviction--a permanent eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by the Medicaid program. The nursing home chain that 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. While this may have been a good financial decision in the short run, its effects on our Nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a widespread basis, would be nothing short of 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 reimbursements to nursing homes may need to be revisited, playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way to send that message to Congress or to state legislatures. 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 homes to dump patients indiscriminately. The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice elderly Americans for the sake of their own economic bottom line is bad enough. What is even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions. The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law allows nursing homes to discharge patients for--among other reasons-- inability to pay. If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, the State and Federal governments are no longer authorized to pay the affected residents' nursing home bills. The nursing home can then conveniently, and unceremoniously, dump its former Medicaid patients 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 of transfer trauma are stark. The death rate among seniors is 2 to 3 times higher than 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 of this extreme cost, nearly half of all nursing home residents who enter as private-paying patients exhaust their personal savings, lose their health insurance coverage during their stay, and become Medicaid beneficiaries. Medicaid is, for most retirees, the 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 strong and appropriate action, but it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared responsibility--shared between the States and the Federal Government. While the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid dumping is not the problem of a single State. 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 they are responsible community citizens. Our bill is designed solely to prevent potential future abuses by the bad actors. This bill is simple and fair. It would prohibit current Medicaid beneficiaries, or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being evicted from their homes. That is a crucial point, Mr. President. Adela Mongiovi is not just a ``beneficiary''; she is a mother and she is a grandmother. And to Adela Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care Center of Tampa is not an ``assisted living facility.'' To Adela Mongiovi, it 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. Through the passage of this bill, we can provide that security to Adela Mongiovi and to all of our Nation's seniors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred from the April 7, 1998, Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I submit the bill and ask for its immediate referral.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, along with Senators Chafee, Johnson, Grassley, and Harkin, I will be introducing today the Nursing Home Patient Protection Act. This is legislation to protect our Nation's seniors from indiscriminate patient dumping from nursing homes. Approximately one month 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 had called home for the last four years. At least that's what her son Nelson and daughter-in-law Gina feared when officials at the Rehabilitation and Health Care 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 month, the real story far exceeded their worst fears. The supposedly temporary relocation was actually a permanent eviction--a permanent eviction of all 52 residents whose housing and care were paid for by the Medicaid program. The nursing home chain that 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. While this may have been a good financial decision in the short run, its effects on our Nation's senior citizens, if practiced on a widespread basis, would be nothing short of 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 reimbursements to nursing homes may need to be revisited, playing Russian roulette with elderly patients' lives is hardly the way to send that message to Congress or to state legislatures. 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 homes to dump patients indiscriminately. The fact that some nursing home companies are willing to sacrifice elderly Americans for the sake of their own economic bottom line is bad enough. What is even worse is their attempt to evade blame for Medicaid evictions. The starkest evidence of this shirking of responsibility is found in the shell game many companies play to justify evictions. Current law allows nursing homes to discharge patients for--among other reasons-- inability to pay. If a facility decreases its number of Medicaid beds, the State and Federal governments are no longer authorized to pay the affected residents' nursing home bills. The nursing home can then conveniently, and unceremoniously, dump its former Medicaid patients 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 of transfer trauma are stark. The death rate among seniors is 2 to 3 times higher than 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 of this extreme cost, nearly half of all nursing home residents who enter as private-paying patients exhaust their personal savings, lose their health insurance coverage during their stay, and become Medicaid beneficiaries. Medicaid is, for most retirees, the 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 strong and appropriate action, but it was only a partial solution. Medicaid funding is a shared responsibility--shared between the States and the Federal Government. While the most egregious incident occurred in Florida, Medicaid dumping is not the problem of a single State. 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 they are responsible community citizens. Our bill is designed solely to prevent potential future abuses by the bad actors. This bill is simple and fair. It would prohibit current Medicaid beneficiaries, or those who ``spend down'' to Medicaid from being evicted from their homes. That is a crucial point, Mr. President. Adela Mongiovi is not just a ``beneficiary''; she is a mother and she is a grandmother. And to Adela Mongiovi, the Rehabilitation and Health Care Center of Tampa is not an ``assisted living facility.'' To Adela Mongiovi, it 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. Through the passage of this bill, we can provide that security to Adela Mongiovi and to all of our Nation's seniors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred from the April 7, 1998, Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes to deliver 2 statements on 2 different topics.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what is the current time limitation for speaking as in morning business?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Susan Goodman be granted floor privileges during the duration of my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, approximately ten days ago, the Senate voted to ratify the accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. I joined 79 of my colleagues in supporting this historic measure. This vote occurred at the end of a week of debate in the Senate on this matter. But it signaled the beginning of an equally important process--that of redoubling or diplomatic efforts to build greater trust and cooperation with Russia. Many who argued against expanding the alliance did so on the assumption that such expansion would sour our relations with Russia and reduce the chances for progress in arms control. I believe that the consequences of expanding NATO are still undetermined, and that those consequences will depend largely on how we conduct our relations with Russia in the coming years. Russia currently has 6,680 strategic nuclear warheads, thousands of tactical warheads, and hundreds of tons of fissile material that could be used to produce additional nuclear warheads. Ensuring that these weapons are properly controlled and further reductions in strategic warheads are made is one of the principal national security interests of the United States. This is why it is critical that we take greater steps to reach out to Russia and demonstrate our desire to work with them in a cooperative fashion. Mr. President, in 1996, I was a member of the Commission on America's National Interests. This commission, which included my colleagues Senator McCain, Roberts, and former Senator Nunn, as well as other foreign policy experts, was charged with identifying American national interests in the Post-cold-war era. The Commission specifically addressed the question of expanding NATO, saying, ``NATO enlargement is in the U.S. interest, but it will be essential to manage the process in ways that take account of Russian concerns.'' We have already taken several important steps, including the U.S.- Russian Founding Act, the Nunn-Lugar programs, and the Partnership for Peace. Indeed, U.S. and Russian forces have served side by side in Bosnia. But there is much more to be done. We must seek new ways to cooperate and build trust between our two great nations. What is needed is a sustained creative program of outreach to demonstrate that NATO expansion was not a hostile act designed to build a new Iron Curtain closer to Russia's borders. Nor was it a signal that we have lost interest in helping Russia work through one of the most significant societal transformations in history. One suggestion for creative outreach involves the Year 2000 Problem, which is sometimes referred to as Y2K. We have undertaken a massive effort to deal with this issue of the reliability of our information systems after the year 2000. The Defense Department has alone identified 2800 critical systems that must be ``cured'' before Y2K. The Russians have not yet determined if they have a similar problem, not to mention they have not commenced the process of attempting to fix it. It is in our interests to work with Russia to help them identify the scope of their Y2K problem and to remedy it. It would be detrimental in the extreme 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 could be even worse is if their critical systems continue to operate with false and corrupted information. It is in both U.S. and Russian interests for us to have the highest level of confidence in our command and control systems and to build confidence through transparency and other cooperative measures. Another area that presents opportunity for sustained outreach to Russia is interparliamentary cooperation. Each member of Congress, regardless of their feelings on NATO enlargement, should make an effort to reach out to our counterparts in Russia to foster greater trust and cooperation. During the Cold War, intermittent attention was paid to interparliamentary relations. Unfortunately, since 1989, Russians believe that U.S. interest in such contacts has dwindled. Some efforts at interparliamentary cooperation are underway. I will mention two of them. The Aspen Institute has held yearly meetings since 1994 that bring together U.S. and Russian parliamentarians. Speaker Gingrich has established an initiative, under the direction of Congressman Curt Weldon, to reach out to the Russian Duma. But more should be done. Because of its responsibility to provide advice and consent on treaties, the Senate has a special responsibility to play a role in this effort. We can be instrumental in creating an environment in which the Russian Duma will seek to cooperate with the United States. In fact, the commission on America's National Interests spoke of ``direct contact--engaging Russia in ways that demonstrate the benefits on nonaggressive behavior,'' as one of the principal ways that we can promote a benign Russian foreign policy. These types of contacts will also serve to strengthen Russian democracy. All of these are very much in the United States national interest. While I supported NATO expansion, I was concerned that the Senate entered into the debate after the United States had already committed to expanding the alliance. The vote for NATO expansion in the Senate was bipartisan, but in my judgment that support was not very deep. Many senators, including myself, felt we were too deeply committed to reject expansion, calculating that the cost of non-action at this point would be greater than the risk of action. Preventing a repetition of this if and when there is to be additional expansion of the alliance is critical. A serious dialogue must involve Congress, the White House, and the American people, and must take place before commitments are made. An example of this was the structured consultations that took place between a Congress which was shifting in terms of its partisan leadership and a Democratic President immediately following the end of the Second World War. In fact, Senator Tom Connelly and Arthur Vandenburg, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were personally involved in negotiating many of the post-war treaties, spending much of 1946, for instance, not in the Senate Chambers but overseas involved in the detailed negotiations of what was to become the framework of our cold war strategy. President Truman used these close consultations to build a bipartisan consensus that led, among other things, to the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949, and the strong vote of support which that treaty received from the U.S. Senate. Divided government raises the level of partisanship on domestic issues. As a nation, we cannot accept similar destabilization of our international values, goals, and responsibilities. It will be on our ability to meet those challenges that the ultimate test of the wisdom of our vote to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be predicated. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering, joined by our colleagues, Senator D'Amato and Senator Feinstein, makes two modifications to the innocent spouse provision which is in this legislation. Background: Under the current tax law, if a husband and wife jointly sign a return, they are jointly responsible for any deficiency that might subsequently be found to have been the result of that filing. A typical case is that after a husband and wife have had marital discord and are divorced, the husband may have left town and is difficult to find, the IRS locates the custodial parent, typically the wife, who is more easily accessible, and then she becomes responsible for 100 percent of the tax deficiency that was the result of a filing while the marriage was in place. Under the current law, there is a provision called ``innocent spouse'' in which a spouse can theoretically avoid that responsibility. I emphasize the word ``theoretically,'' because the testimony we heard before the Finance Committee was that it is virtually impossible for the standards of that innocent spouse provision to be met and that, in fact, there are some 50,000 women, generally ex-spouses, who are caught up in this 100- percent responsibility for a tax return. In the Finance Committee hearings, we were impressed with a recommendation made by the American Bar Association as to a different approach to this issue. That approach was essentially an accounting approach which said that instead of using joint and several responsibility, it would be an individual responsibility. If, for instance, the husband was responsible for 60 percent of the income, which went into the tax return, and the wife, 40 percent, then those percentages would define responsibility in a subsequent deficiency. That basic approach was adopted by the Finance Committee, but there were some exceptions to that filing for proportional responsibility. The primary exception was that if the Secretary of the Treasury could demonstrate--and the burden is on the Secretary of the Treasury to demonstrate--that an individual making this election to be taxed only for their proportional share of the deficiency of the return, that if they had actual knowledge of the conditions within that return which led to this deficiency, then they would be 100 percent responsible. So actual knowledge would override the ability to elect only partial responsibility. This amendment makes two modifications to that provision. The first is the question of when is that knowledge relevant. The language that we are inserting into the legislation which is currently before the Senate is that the actual knowledge has to be ``at the time such individual''--that is, the individual who is seeking to pay only a proportionate share of a deficiency-- ``signed the return.'' So the key question is what did you know at the time you signed the return. The second issue is an unfortunate reality where we had testimony that some spouses signed the joint return, and may even have had actual knowledge of its contents, but did so under duress, including under physical duress. So we have provided a second provision which says that even if you had actual knowledge at the time you signed the return, that you would not be denied the right to apply for this proportioning of responsibility if you, the individual, can establish that the return was signed under duress. The burden of proof is on the taxpayer to establish that even though they had actual knowledge of the circumstances in the return that led to the deficiency, but still want to secure the benefits of less than joint and several responsibility, because they were under duress, coerced into signing, it is their responsibility to carry the burden of proof that, in fact, those circumstances existed. Mr. President, I apologize for having taken the time of the Senate, but I thought it was important since this is a very significant part of the provision of taxpayer relief which is in this legislation. And it is a fairly expensive provision in terms of the potential for lost revenue. But that expense is one that we believe is a just expense because it will lift from the responsibility of taxpayers who were ignorant of circumstances but were entrapped by conditions that were often beyond their control and certainly beyond their knowledge and in some cases the result of actual duress and coercion, that we should recognize that and not require them to be responsible for more than their proportional share of the deficiency. So, Mr. President, I appreciate the joinder in this amendment by Senator D'Amato and Senator Feinstein and ask for the amendment's immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendments Nos. 2370 and 2371, En Bloc

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.