Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I ask for immediate consideration of this amendment. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of offering an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Bond. Yesterday, I spoke at some length about the issue of small business and the Internal Revenue Service. In that statement I pointed out that small business is a peculiarly affected part of the American economy as it relates to the Internal Revenue Service. Small business, as we know, is the fastest growing sector of our economy. Typically, management has multiple responsibilities and does not have the kind of access to a panoply of expertise in accounting and law as a larger business would have. Oftentimes the small businessperson and those associated with the small business are in their own learning curve as to what requirements of compliance might be. Therefore, it is my feeling as we look at this reform of the IRS that we should pay some special attention to how this will evolve in terms of its application to small businesses. As we know, one of the principal elements of this reform is the establishment of an IRS Oversight Board. This oversight board has the responsibility of being both the window of the Government onto the taxpayer, and the taxpayer back to the Government. So it serves an especially important role of understanding and communication. The legislation is written so that three of the members of the nine- member oversight board are ex officio--the Secretary of the Treasury, the IRS Commissioner, and a representative of IRS employees. The other six appointees are Presidential appointments, and according to the current draft of the legislation these six appointees must possess expertise in the following areas: management of large service organizations, customer service, Federal tax laws, information technology, organization development, and needs and concerns of taxpayers. The amendment that I am offering will add an additional category of expertise to be represented among the six Presidential appointees and that is the needs and concerns of small business. It is the expectation that the President would appoint six individuals, and his responsibility would be to assure that those six had a sufficient range of backgrounds that they would be able to cover the six and, if this amendment is added, the seventh requirement. I think it is extremely important that among the six people who are appointed as Presidential appointees to the oversight board for the Internal Revenue Service there be represented in that six one or more individuals who understand the needs and concerns of small businesses of America and can assure that those concerns are effectively communicated to the management and administration of the Internal Revenue Service and, if necessary, the Congress, for appropriate changes in law. The distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, joins me in this effort. I want to commend him for his thorough analysis of the IRS bill as it affects small business and for including this provision in his legislation. So, Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment which would add to the requirements for those persons who are serving on the IRS Oversight Board that there be included expertise in the needs and concerns of small business.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the leader is bringing to the floor this week the Internal Revenue Service reform bill and giving the Senate the opportunity to act expeditiously on this matter. It is my hope that as soon as we act, there will be a prompt conference committee with the House, which has already passed analogous although not as comprehensive legislation, so that soon the American people will have the benefit of the reforms that are contained in this legislation. We did not get to this point easily. I compliment particularly Senators Bob Kerrey and Charles Grassley, who served on the commission that reviewed the IRS from which many of the ideas contained in this legislation have emanated. I congratulate Senators Roth and Moynihan of the Finance Committee for having led us to this point. And I congratulate new Commissioner Rossotti of the IRS, who has brought a fire, an energy, to reform the agency from the inside that has facilitated the consideration of these structural changes that will be contained in this legislation. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, before I proceed further, I ask unanimous consent that Kate Mahar, Ed Moore, and Maribel Garcia-Romero of my staff be allowed the privilege of the floor for the pendency of the debate on the IRS reform bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first, I will comment on some provisions which will be in the Senate bill that I have had a particular interest in and then to alert the Senate to an amendment I will be offering, possibly with others, when we reach the consideration of this bill. This bill follows many months of investigations and hearings by the Finance Committee, both in Washington and throughout the Nation. It follows a process in which the committee has first tried to do a careful diagnosis of what was the problem and then consider the options, the prescriptions that might deal with that problem, and then incorporate into this legislation that prescription which was considered to be the most appropriate. I compliment the people who have participated in this process. Specifically, I held a hearing in January in Orlando, FL, where a number of Floridians had the opportunity to participate in this thoughtful process of diagnosis and prescription. I know that Senator Nickles held a similar hearing in Oklahoma. Other Senators communicated with their constituents through various forums. So this is, in a real sense, a product of the people of America. Let me review some of the diagnoses and the pathologies in the IRS that surfaced. One of those was the need to help taxpayers resolve their debts. What was discovered was that many taxpayers want to resolve their IRS debts but the Code imposes so many penalties that once a liability is established, it is very difficult to satisfy that debt. As an example, a Floridian, Carl Junstrom of Tampa, over 10 years ago, because of misinterpreted advice of an IRS agent, ended up being responsible for $25,000 in taxes. He entered into an agreement with the IRS under which he paid $181 a month towards that debt owed. After having faithfully met that monthly obligation for almost a decade, and having paid $28,000 towards an original $25,000 indebtedness, Mr. Junstrom was informed that he still owed $26,000. How is that possible? The answer is, because the penalty clock kept running during the pendency of this agreement and, therefore, although he thought he was paying off his indebtedness and, in fact, paid $3,000 more than he originally owed, because of accumulated penalties during that same 10-year period, he ended up owing more than he had at the beginning of the process. What is the remedy? This bill includes a provision that encourages the IRS and the taxpayers to engage in installment agreements by, one, assuring the availability of payment plans for taxpayers with liabilities of $10,000 or less and, two, eliminating the failure-to-pay penalty for periods where the taxpayer is making payments pursuant to an installment agreement. In the case of Mr. Junstrom, the penalty clock would have stopped as long as he was making his $181-a-month payments. Another remedy is to adopt proposals to eliminate the differential between the interest rate the IRS charges individuals and the rate that the IRS pays taxpayers. Previously, there had been a higher interest charged to the taxpayers on a deficit than the interest which the taxpayer would receive if it was found that they were owed a refund. That differential is eliminated in this legislation. A second problem identified was protecting the innocent taxpayer. What is the problem? One example of the problem is that many individuals filing joint returns find out subsequent to filing those joint returns that their spouse has understated income or overstated deductions. Although the individual may have had little or no income and little or no knowledge of this, the IRS holds that person responsible for 100 percent of the taxes attributable to the individual spouse's action. This typically surfaces after there has been a divorce and one spouse, often the husband, has left town. The wife, who usually has custodial responsibility for the children, is still there and is accessible, so she becomes the target for the IRS collection activity. About 50,000 women a year are in that category which is generically referred to as the ``innocent spouse.'' An example is Karen Andreasen, a Floridian. Her signature was forged on a joint return, but she ended up being held liable for her ex-husband's debts. The remedy? The remedy incorporates legislation which Senator D'Amato and others, including myself, have introduced as discrete legislation. This generally would adopt an approach recommended by the American Bar Association which essentially says that each spouse is to pay his or her share of the tax liability in proportion to what he or she contributed to the original tax return. If, for example, the return represented income that was 80 percent the husband's earning and 20 percent wife's earning, in a subsequent dispute the wife would be limited to a responsibility of 20 percent of any deficiency. That is a very important provision in this legislation, which will have an immediate benefit, because this legislation applies this new standard retroactively to existing open cases for many tens of thousands of spouses caught in this vice. Another issue that surfaced was assisting taxpayers in their negotiations with the IRS. What is the problem? The problem is that many taxpayers, especially small businesses and moderate-income families, find themselves unable to negotiate with an agency which has the power to seize, levy and garnish wages. An example, Betty Bryant of Miami, Florida started a small business to supplement her income as a State employee. She actually overpaid her taxes but filled out the form incorrectly and ended up with wages being garnished while this matter was in controversy. Another example, Thomas Jones, submitted an offer- in-compromise to the IRS. The offer was rejected even though the IRS admitted they couldn't find his file. They rejected his offer even though they didn't have the information upon which to make an intelligent judgment as to whether the offer was appropriate or not. He also was not apprised of his right to appeal the rejection of his offer. What is the remedy? The Finance Committee includes proposals to require a review of any IRS decision to reject an offer-in-compromise by collection. This will assure that there will be some independent party reviewing the offer in compromise. Moreover, the bill requires that the taxpayer be notified of this right. In addition, the bill requires the IRS to suspend collection efforts if the taxpayer appeals the rejection of an offer-in-compromise. The committee also approved proposals to expand the IRS Alternative Dispute Resolution Program. In many jurisdictions, the development of alternative dispute resolution procedures has provided a significant and frequently much more efficient alternative to traditional litigation. This proposal would build upon a pilot program initiated by the IRS pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. It would allow third-party mediation of cases of tax disputes. It would also establish a pilot program for the use of arbitration in tax disputes. The legislation also provides a proposal to require acceptance of an offer-in-compromise if the IRS has lost the taxpayer's file. Another area where Senators found deficiencies in the IRS is customer service. What is the problem? Many taxpayers feel they are treated as criminals rather than as customers. The IRS is often unreachable and difficult to pin down on advice they give to taxpayers on how to properly fill out a return. Jim Stamps of Jacksonville provided testimony that it had taken him 4 years to get a letter stating that he had paid off all the taxes that he owed. Without that letter, many opportunities that were available to him personally and in business were frustrated. Mr. Junstrom, who I mentioned earlier, the man who had the $25,000 bill, paid $28,000 but still owed $26,000, and had requested the IRS to sit down with him to explain what he owed. He never was afforded that opportunity and continued to receive confusing and conflicting notices. What is the remedy? The bill reported out of the committee includes a requirement that the IRS evaluate employees on their customer service as well as on their collection ability. The Finance Committee heard testimony indicating that in the past not only was there almost a total focus of evaluation based on how much money an agent collected, but that those standards became numeric, and if you didn't meet the standard of collections, then you received a downgrade on your evaluation. This legislation repeats and expands upon a directive that Senator Grassley wrote into the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that made it illegal to evaluate an IRS employee based on a numerical standard of how much was collected. But this legislation goes beyond that and says that employee evaluation will give emphasis to their customer service as well as their other responsibilities. The IRS reform bill will also increase accessibility by a very simple thing--pick up the telephone book today and look under U.S. Government in virtually any community in America and then look under IRS. One thing you will see is an 800 number as to where to call to get service. There are two things that you typically do not see. First, you may not find a local telephone number that you can call in the event that the 800 number is busy, which happens frequently, particularly during periods just before April the 15th. Second, what you don't see is an address so that the taxpayer who wants to go down and actually meet face to face with a human being to review their problem will know where to call and where to go. This legislation will require the IRS publish both its local telephone number and its local address. The legislation requires the IRS to issue annual statements to taxpayers who have entered into installment agreements, like Mr. Junstrom. The statement would include amounts paid, remaining balance, and projected pay-off time so that the taxpayer will be in regular knowledge of where he or she stands with the IRS. None of us purports that this legislation will solve all of the problems and all the taxpayer complaints with the IRS. And we should resist the temptation to oversell this legislation. The IRS will have to take many administrative actions to implement these laws and undertake other reforms to achieve that goal. Fortunately, I believe the IRS is moving expeditiously to become a more user-friendly agency. It is dealing with a culture which in the past has focused inside the agency, what was to the convenience of the agency, like not publishing the address so that taxpayers wouldn't come down to the IRS office and ask a lot of questions, to an agency that is moving to a culture of being consumer friendly and saying: Here is where we are, come down and we seriously want to render service to the taxpayer. Commissioner Rossotti has implemented a broad range of reforms and has undertaken investigations to get to the bottom of other allegations that have been made about the agency's activities. The IRS has extended its hours, implemented problem resolution days, and has stopped evaluating collection agents based on the numerical amount of taxes they collect. This legislation will continue that effort. Mr. President, all of what I have just said is in the bill that we will soon be considering, and I recommend that bill and these provisions to my colleagues. Let me now turn to a provision that is not currently in the bill. It is my intention to offer an amendment to ensure that the new IRS Oversight Board will have at least one member with expertise on small business issues. One of the recurring themes of the hearings that we have had is the concentration of problems between taxpayers and the IRS, especially when that taxpayer was a small businessman or woman--an individual who frequently is relatively new to business, learning what the difference was between an expense deductible item and an item that had to be amortized over time, a person who frequently did not have access to or could not afford expert professional advice, but a person who was trying to comply with their legal responsibilities. These are not evaders of taxation, they are people who need help, and up-to-date information, in order to meet their responsibilities. We are creating in this legislation an oversight board. That oversight board is intended to provide a new window of enlightenment, in both directions, from the public to the IRS, and from the IRS back to the public. Under legislation crafted in the Finance Committee, the current board would be composed of 9 individuals. Those 9 individuals will include the Secretary of the Treasury, the IRS Commissioner, and a representative of the IRS employees. In addition to those 3 named individuals, there will be 6 Presidential appointees. Each of these 6 must possess expertise in at least one of the following areas: Management of large service organizations, customer service, Federal tax laws, information technology, organization development, and the needs and concerns of taxpayers. Missing from this list is any specific requirement for expertise in small business issues--an omission that I consider to be glaring given the fact that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and such a large target of concern for IRS activities. I believe that at least one of the members of the IRS oversight board should have practical experience in small business issues. Let me outline the reasons why I feel so strongly about this, and why I will be introducing an amendment to make this part of the IRS reform legislation. Small businesses have more difficulty dealing with the complex Internal Revenue Code. Small businesses have relatively less time, money, and expertise than large corporations. They need an IRS that is sensitive to these limitations. Let me explain how I came to this conclusion with a specific example that relates to this bill. In January of this year, I hosted a Retirement Security Summit at the University of South Florida in Tampa. One session of that Retirement Security Summit specifically focused on the issue of small businesses and their pension plans. Delegates, small business owners and their representatives discussed their frustrations and their experiences with the IRS. They told me that many small businesses do not offer retirement plans for their employees because they fear the draconian penalties that the IRS can impose for inadvertent violations of complex pension laws. Mr. President, this is a very serious issue of security for tens of millions of Americans who work for small businesses, the fastest- growing sector of our economy, but whose employers do not provide pension and retirement programs. We identified that one of the reasons for that unwillingness to provide these programs is the concern of the consequences of subsequent IRS enforcement if the small business finds itself in some technical violation. Several of my Senate colleagues and I began to consider whether congressional action would help solve this problem. We drafted legislation to provide that companies that correct errors prior to audit would not be subject to sanction. But before we offered the proposal as an amendment to the IRS Reform bill, we wrote to the IRS commissioner, Mr. Rossotti, and asked him if the IRS proposed to change the imposition of penalties for inadvertent errors. Commissioner Rossotti responded immediately, in a matter of days, and committed to expanding existing self-correction programs and allow taxpayers to rely on those self-correction programs. We were pleased with the quick action of the commissioner in issuing Revenue Procedure 98-22, which many small businesses have characterized as a common sense, reasonable solution to their problem. That process made me realize how difficult it is for many small businesses to comply not only with the complexities of tax laws as they relate to pension plans, but the whole array of rules that the Internal Revenue Code has spawned. It made me further realize that the IRS needs to be sensitive to small businesses when it issues regulations and enforces the tax laws. Small business owners often have fewer resources, but must still comply with the same complicated Tax Code as large businesses. Small businesses cannot afford to hire full-time lawyers and accountants to monitor the Tax Code for changes that may apply to them. And small businesses should not have to wait for Congress to be able to change the law where solutions can be found by administrative action. The myriad of challenges that small businesses face have been reflected in the hearings the Finance Committee has held this year on IRS reform. Many of the taxpayers who have testified so persuasively about mistreatment at the hands of IRS agents have been small business owners. In my opinion, by adding a small business person to the IRS oversight board, we will be able to provide for a more prompt, more sensitive understanding of the needs of small businesses and the ability of IRS to respond internally. Even the IRS has acknowledged the unique needs of small businesses. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on January 28 of this year, Commissioner Rossotti proposed reorganizing the IRS into 4 units--each charged with end-to-end responsibility for serving a particular group of taxpayers. He proposed dedicating one of those four working units to small businesses. Mr. President, it is for those reasons that it is my intention, with other Members of the Senate, to offer an amendment to this bill, when it is before the Senate, to include a representative of small business as one of the 6 presidential appointees to the IRS oversight board. I believe this would be of substantial benefit to the enforcement of our tax laws as they relate to the special needs of small businesses. Mr. President, before I conclude, I want to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Kit Bond, who chairs the Small Business Committee. He has included a similar provision in legislation that he will be introducing. Should the requirement that the oversight board have small business expertise not be incorporated in the bill through Senator Bond's amendment, I will urge adoption of this targeted amendment that I will intend to offer. The amendment is simple, fair, and essential if we are to bolster our Nation's small businesses. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support legislation to include small business on the IRS oversight board. I ask the managers to let us know when it would be appropriate to introduce this amendment. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the process by which the items in the IRS reform bill have been developed. It has been thoughtful and it has received the strong, steady support of our chairman, Senator Roth, and has led to a set of reforms that I believe the Senate will be very much carrying out the wishes of the American people in adopting. With respect to small business, Commissioner Rossotti stated: Another very important group of taxpayers are small businesses, including sole proprietors and small business corporations. There are about 25 million filers in this category. Compared to other individual taxpayers, this group has much more frequent and complex filing requirements and pays much more directly to the IRS, including tax deposits, quarterly employment returns, and many other types of income tax returns and schedules. Providing good service to this group of taxpayers is more difficult than wage and investment filers, and compliance and collection problems are also much greater. Small start-up businesses in particular need special help. By dedicating a fully responsible unit to providing all IRS services for the self-employed and small business, this unit will be able to work closely with industry associations, small business groups and preparers to solve problems for the benefit of all. Commissioner Rossotti is right. The IRS needs to focus resources on helping small businesses, and that focus needs to be reflected on the Oversight Board. The amendment that I propose to offer is also needed because small businesses play such a central role in our nation s economic strength. The numbers tell the story: Small Business Administration figures indicate that of the 5,369,068 employer firms in 1995, 78.8% had fewer than 10 employees, and 99.7% had fewer than 500 employees. Employers with fewer than 500 employees increased from 4,941,821 in 1988 to 5,261,967 in 1994, a 6.5% increase. The number of small business owners (as measured by business tax returns) in the United States increased by 57% since 1982. According to the Small Business Administration, America's small businesses created 11,827,000 jobs from 1992 to 1996. This number represents the vast majority of all new jobs created during that period. Small microbusinesses with 1-4 employees generated about 50% of all the net new jobs from 1992-1996, while firms with 5-19 employees created another 27% of new employment opportunities. The fastest growing of small-business-dominated industries during the past several years include restaurants, outpatient care facilities, offices of physicians, special trade construction contractors, computer and data processing services, and credit reporting and collection. Ninety-four percent of high technology firms have less than 500 employees; 73% have fewer than 20 employees. In my home state of Florida, the productivity of small business is astounding. In 1996, Florida had 348,000 businesses with employees. 99% of all businesses with employees had less than 500 workers. The state also had 412,000 self-employed persons in 1996, for an estimated total of 760,000 businesses. In Florida, small businesses created 1,081,000 or the 1,194,000 net new jobs from 1992 to 1996. Very small businesses (less than 20 employees) created 71.7% of the small business growth with 775,000 new jobs. These numbers reflect the importance of small businesses as job creators. Recent IRS statistics reflect the rapid growth of small businesses. They indicate that net income reported by sole proprietors has doubled in the last decade. It is because of these reasons and trends that I urge my colleagues to support this effort to give small businesses a voice on the IRS Oversight Board. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Kit Bond, Chairman of the Small Business Committee, in this area. He included a similar provision in his IRS Reform bill. Should the requirement that the Oversight Board have small business expertise not be adopted via a broader amendment, I will urge the adoption of this targeted amendment. The amendment I propose is simple, fair, and essential if we are to bolster our nation's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support it--and ask the managers to let us know when it is appropriate to introduce the amendment. The amendment that I propose to offer will extend its benefits in a very significant way to the most important part of the American economy, the small business community of this Nation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to announce my cosponsorship of Senator Bumpers' ``Consumer and Main Street Protection Act of 1998.'' My support for this legislation is based on four important principles: First, this bill promotes tax fairness. Mail order businesses unfairly benefit from their unique status. They can engage in interstate commerce--sell products to customers in any state of the nation--but are not responsible for collecting state and local sales taxes. This places state and local businesses, which have no choice but to collect sales tax on the merchandise they sell, at a severe competitive disadvantage. This is especially damaging to small businesses, which are the backbone of our nation's economy. Over the last five years, Florida businesses with less than 20 employees have created 71 percent of all new jobs in the state--775,000 in total. Our bill will put main street merchants on the same competitive footing as mail order businesses. Second, this bill protects consumers. It prevents them from experiencing an unexpected and unwelcome tax surprise. Many mail order shoppers are unaware that most states are empowered to assess a sales tax on the purchase of goods sold across state lines. They are surprised when states like Florida come around to collect sales tax due on particularly expensive goods. Third, this bill preserves states' rights. Mr. President, there is no state right that is more fundamental than the right to decide how to raise revenue. Because the federal government has not protected this right, Florida currently loses an estimated $168.9 million each year in potential revenues. Nationwide, states have lost more than $3.3 billion as a result of Washington's handcuffs. If we are determined to make good on our promise to return more power and responsibility to states and local communities--and I think we must be--it makes no sense to dictate how Governors and legislators raise money. That's their job, not ours. Mr. President, state officials from across the nation are asking for our help. But don't take my word for it. Ask the National Governors Association, which once again passed a resolution supporting this kind of federal legislation at its Winter 1997 meetings. Finally, this bill provides fairness to mail order firms. Most companies with nationwide sales of less than $3 million are exempt. The act gives companies the option of collecting a single blended rate for each state rather than the myriad of different state and local rates. Out of state companies only have to file tax returns once per quarter. And states participating in the Act must establish a toll-free number for out-of-state companies to obtain information and forms. Mr. President, it is time that the federal government remove the straitjacket from states and restore to Governors and state legislators their power to raise revenue. I commend Senator Bumpers for his efforts to preserve states' rights in these important fiscal matters.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my esteemed colleague Senator Mack, to introduce legislation to rename the Gainesville, Florida Veterans Affairs Medical Center after its distinguished and long-time Director: Malcolm Randall. After thirty-two years as Director of the Gainesville VAMC, and a total of fifty-nine years in federal service, Mr. Randall retires today. He leaves behind a long list of accomplishments and an even longer list of admirers--myself included. Mr. President, allow me to take a few minutes to highlight the career of this visionary person--a man who has redefined the term ``public servant'' over the last half-century. Malcolm Randall's accomplishments are far-reaching and are a testament to the loyalty and devotion he has shown the United States throughout his lifetime. His extensive service to our nation began when he enlisted in the Navy in July of 1942 and was sent off to the South Pacific in the midst of World War II. While courageously fighting on PT boats and battleships in the first battle of the Phillipine Sea, Mr. Randall was injured in the line-of-duty. After four years of valiant active military service, Mr. Randall continued serving his country through his dedicated work in the Veterans' Administration. His outstanding accomplishments and achievements during his tenure at the VA have been recognized with the two highest awards that the VA offers: the Meritorious Service Award, and the Exceptional Service Award, both of which recognize his outstanding performance and exceptional contributions to the improvement of health care for veterans. In 1984, President Reagan paid homage to Mr. Randall with the Presidential Rank Award for his extraordinary accomplishments in the administration of VA programs in Florida, and for exemplifying the highest standards in leadership. Most flattering to Mr. Randall was that this award was recommended by dedicated public servants and local leadership from his own community. Indeed, it was this innovative and thoughtful style of leadership that allowed Mr. Randall to foresee the challenges and obstacles that the VA would face in the 21st Century. Mr. Randall's dogged determination to serve the veterans of Florida, coupled with his visionary leadership, led to his most significant contribution to our nation's veterans: VA restructuring. As Chairman of the Florida Network of VA Hospitals and Outpatient Clinics, Malcolm Randall realized that the VA had to undergo a major transformation to continue to serve veterans well. He understood that the VA health care system needed to modernize, become more efficient with its resources, and adapt to a new method for health care delivery. Mr. Randall saw the future--that the VA was moving towards a ``no- new-starts'' policy for major hospital construction--and he became an early advocate for a new model of VA health care: a strong network of outpatient clinics and hospitals, designed to serve veterans in remote areas more effectively. As a result, 7 new outpatient clinics were built in Florida, a development which has allowed many thousands of Florida veterans to get the health care they deserve but were previously denied. Throughout his long and successful tenure as Director of the Gainesville VAMA, Malcolm Randall has also been a leader in introducing new medical technology to improve the quality of care for the heroes of our country. His responsibility for VA health planning throughout the entire state enabled Mr. Randall to initiate affiliations with three major teaching hospitals--the University of South Florida, the University of Florida, and the University of Miami--and several community colleges. These partnerships have allowed veterans to receive the finest care available from institutions renowned throughout the country. Mr. Randall's excellence has not been limited to his professional service. His community service throughout the state of Florida, and especially in his hometown of Gainesville, has resulted in several tributes and distinctions being bestowed upon him, including being named Gainesville's Citizen of the Year in 1977. The University of Florida also recognized his lifetime devotion to public service by awarding him an honorary doctorate of Public Service. Mr. President, it has been one of the great treasures of my life to have shared the friendship of Malcom Randall. As governor and now as a United States Senator from Florida, Malcom has allowed me to enter his classroom on health care policy and his heart, which is full of compassion for American veterans. All he has done has emanated from his depth of concern for American veterans, firmly attached to his rigorous mind and dedicated spirit to put ideas into action. Florida and America are fortunate to have had him as a fellow citizen. Mr. President, I salute Malcom Randall for all that he has done on behalf of all of our veterans. It is fitting that one of the best medical centers in the country bear his name.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my esteemed colleague Senator Mack, to introduce legislation to rename the Gainesville, Florida Veterans Affairs Medical Center after its distinguished and long-time Director: Malcolm Randall. After thirty-two years as Director of the Gainesville VAMC, and a total of fifty-nine years in federal service, Mr. Randall retires today. He leaves behind a long list of accomplishments and an even longer list of admirers--myself included. Mr. President, allow me to take a few minutes to highlight the career of this visionary person--a man who has redefined the term ``public servant'' over the last half-century. Malcolm Randall's accomplishments are far-reaching and are a testament to the loyalty and devotion he has shown the United States throughout his lifetime. His extensive service to our nation began when he enlisted in the Navy in July of 1942 and was sent off to the South Pacific in the midst of World War II. While courageously fighting on PT boats and battleships in the first battle of the Phillipine Sea, Mr. Randall was injured in the line-of-duty. After four years of valiant active military service, Mr. Randall continued serving his country through his dedicated work in the Veterans' Administration. His outstanding accomplishments and achievements during his tenure at the VA have been recognized with the two highest awards that the VA offers: the Meritorious Service Award, and the Exceptional Service Award, both of which recognize his outstanding performance and exceptional contributions to the improvement of health care for veterans. In 1984, President Reagan paid homage to Mr. Randall with the Presidential Rank Award for his extraordinary accomplishments in the administration of VA programs in Florida, and for exemplifying the highest standards in leadership. Most flattering to Mr. Randall was that this award was recommended by dedicated public servants and local leadership from his own community. Indeed, it was this innovative and thoughtful style of leadership that allowed Mr. Randall to foresee the challenges and obstacles that the VA would face in the 21st Century. Mr. Randall's dogged determination to serve the veterans of Florida, coupled with his visionary leadership, led to his most significant contribution to our nation's veterans: VA restructuring. As Chairman of the Florida Network of VA Hospitals and Outpatient Clinics, Malcolm Randall realized that the VA had to undergo a major transformation to continue to serve veterans well. He understood that the VA health care system needed to modernize, become more efficient with its resources, and adapt to a new method for health care delivery. Mr. Randall saw the future--that the VA was moving towards a ``no- new-starts'' policy for major hospital construction--and he became an early advocate for a new model of VA health care: a strong network of outpatient clinics and hospitals, designed to serve veterans in remote areas more effectively. As a result, 7 new outpatient clinics were built in Florida, a development which has allowed many thousands of Florida veterans to get the health care they deserve but were previously denied. Throughout his long and successful tenure as Director of the Gainesville VAMA, Malcolm Randall has also been a leader in introducing new medical technology to improve the quality of care for the heroes of our country. His responsibility for VA health planning throughout the entire state enabled Mr. Randall to initiate affiliations with three major teaching hospitals--the University of South Florida, the University of Florida, and the University of Miami--and several community colleges. These partnerships have allowed veterans to receive the finest care available from institutions renowned throughout the country. Mr. Randall's excellence has not been limited to his professional service. His community service throughout the state of Florida, and especially in his hometown of Gainesville, has resulted in several tributes and distinctions being bestowed upon him, including being named Gainesville's Citizen of the Year in 1977. The University of Florida also recognized his lifetime devotion to public service by awarding him an honorary doctorate of Public Service. Mr. President, it has been one of the great treasures of my life to have shared the friendship of Malcom Randall. As governor and now as a United States Senator from Florida, Malcom has allowed me to enter his classroom on health care policy and his heart, which is full of compassion for American veterans. All he has done has emanated from his depth of concern for American veterans, firmly attached to his rigorous mind and dedicated spirit to put ideas into action. Florida and America are fortunate to have had him as a fellow citizen. Mr. President, I salute Malcom Randall for all that he has done on behalf of all of our veterans. It is fitting that one of the best medical centers in the country bear his name.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first to my good friend from Georgia and to my good friend from North Dakota, I wish to express my commendation for the quality of debate that is taking place this evening and that has taken place throughout the period of consideration of this legislation. This is, as we will all agree, important business that we are about. I believe that we all start from a desire to see that the young people of our Nation have the best possible educational opportunities. We may differ on the details of how we think we can achieve that objective, but we should respect our individual desires to achieve that goal. It is ironic that we are having this debate on this week as we mourn the death of our former colleague, Senator Terry Sanford. Senator Sanford, in the earlier part of his career, was the distinguished Governor of North Carolina, from 1961 to 1965. During that period, he formed an alliance with the then-president of Harvard, who had written extensively on the needs of education in America in the postwar period. Then-Governor Sanford took the leadership in establishing an organization called the Education Commission of the States. The purpose of the Education Commission of the States was to assist in the national debate to rationalize what should be the role of the Federal Government and the individual States in meeting the educational needs of American youth. It was agreed by the founders of the Education Commission of the States, under the leadership of Governor Sanford, that the primary responsibility for education in America is and should be at the local and State level. But it was also recognized that there were important national goals of education which justified a Federal participation. What were some of those national roles? One, which was particularly searing at the time of Governor Sanford, was the issue of civil rights; that the National Government had a responsibility of assuring that all children had their full, legal civil and human rights protected within the education setting; that education should be an opportunity available to all American youth. The Education Commission of the States recognized that the Federal Government had a particular role in higher education, specifically in assuring access to higher education for all American children. We had just come through the period of the GI bill, at the end of World War II, and we were learning, as a Nation, the benefits that we had secured by the fact that millions of Americans who previously had no chance at higher education suddenly were given that opportunity and that that opportunity should not be limited to that one generation who fought and won World War II, but should be a permanent part of our national commitment to its own future. And a third important area was at-risk children, children who did not come into this world with the benefits and opportunities to be fully competitive and were going to require additional assistance because of their circumstances which were beyond their control. Those have traditionally been some of the priority areas that have defined what should be Federal policy for education. I believe that as they were in the early 1960s, they continue in the late 1990s as important principles to determine what should be the Federal role in education. For that reason, I am pleased with much of what is in this legislation, but concerned about other important provisions. I am concerned, for instance, about a theme that is running through several of the amendments that we have adopted, which essentially says that this thoughtful construction of a Federal role in education is no longer relevant, that we can treat all Federal education funds as if they are fungible, that they can serve any purpose that a State determines, that there is no longer an appropriate, focused Federal role in these areas such as access to higher education and at-risk children. We have adopted not just in one place but in several places amendments, language that says essentially, notwithstanding any other law or provision, that any Federal education funds can be used for the specific object that the authors of that amendment thought were appropriate. I do not believe that is tolerable education policy. It is not policy. It is the denial of a rational policy to direct Federal educational actions and resources. For that reason, I am going to vote for this bill, but I will announce at this point that if this bill should come back from the conference committee containing these what I consider to be troublesome provisions, I will have to vote against the conference report. I believe there is a sufficient amount of good in this bill that it is not appropriate at this stage to pronounce its death; that, rather, we should try, with the opportunities that will be available to us in the next few weeks and with the confidence that I have in a person such as Senator Coverdell--that we will be able to keep what is constructive and what is consistent with our tradition, keep those things that Senator Sanford would be pleased to have as part of his legacy of educational policy for America, and discard those that are not constructive and not consistent with our traditions. Let me focus on those areas in which I believe there is substantial good embedded for our education and consistent with our tradition. The fundamental thrust of this legislation is to increase the access to higher education. While much has been made of the amendment that bears the specific name of the Senator from Georgia as to its role in elementary and secondary education, if anyone looks at the actual numbers and how this will play out in the planning of the American family, the reality is that the program is going to have its principal utility in preparing a family to meet those enormous costs that are associated with higher education, and, thus, its principal contribution is going to be in making it possible for families to save and plan and prepare for the cost of college and university. And that is a good thing. We are going to spend approximately $1.7 billion to accomplish that. But that is not the only area in which we are going to encourage access to higher education. There is another provision in this bill which was sponsored by the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, which happens to have a cost over the same time period of approximately $2 billion, more than the cost of Senator Coverdell's provision. What will that provide? That will extend the current provision in the law that says an employer can provide higher education tuition to one of its employees so that that employee can increase his or her skills and wisdom and contribution both to the company and to his or her own goals, and that that employee will not have to take into the employee's income the value of that tuition provided by the employer. That is clearly a provision aimed at making more certain, more stable, our concept of access to higher education through cooperation between employers and employees. There is another provision which I have been active in advocating, and that relates to State programs through which families can purchase contracts to pay the tuition and, in the case of many States, the room and board for their child or grandchild or nephew or niece in advance of the time that that child is ready to enter college or university. These plans, which now are in place in 21 States and will add another 13 States before the end of 1998, vary but have some similar elements. Those elements generally include the ability to purchase at a point in time the tuition for a child prior to the time that child is ready for college and, thus, lock in the tuition at its current level. Thus, the family is able to avoid tuition inflation, which has been running substantially higher than inflation in the general economy and higher than increases in family income. It also provides an effective means by which families can plan and save for that large cost. It also fundamentally changes the nature of the question that a child will ask as they are growing towards college years. They no longer will have to ask the question, ``Will I be able to afford to go to college?'' Instead, they will ask the questions ``Will I be prepared to go to college? Will I work hard enough? Will I make adequate grades? Will I be able to distinguish myself so that I will be admitted to the college for which I have already made financial preparations?'' I think that will be a very important step toward increasing the level of motivation and quality of learning. There has been a cloud over these plans, the plans that Senator Landrieu sponsored when she was the Treasurer of the State of Louisiana, the plans which many Members of this Senate have been involved with in their individual States, and that cloud was that the Internal Revenue Service has said these plans are taxable and, therefore, sent a chilling signal to States considering the establishment of the plan and individual families' participation. In the last two years, in what I think were very wise decisions, this Congress eliminated the taxability of the plans on an annual basis. That is, as the interest accrued in the account for a particular child, that accumulation would no longer be subject to Federal income taxation. The provision that is in this bill, which happens to have approximately the same cost to the Federal Treasury of $1.7 billion as the underlying provision of the Senator from Georgia, will say that when the funds are transferred at the time of commencement of college education from the State higher education tuition trust fund to the individual university to which the student is now going to be enrolled, that that transaction will also be nontaxable. So the family can be assured that every dollar that it invests, every dollar that is accumulated in the fund during the period that the child is maturing to college age, will be used for that child's education. I believe that with the adoption of this provision, we will find many more States that will establish a State plan and many more families than the over 700,000 who are currently participating will participate in this means of preparing for their child's higher education. At the end of the day with this legislation, we will have Senator Coverdell's bill which will provide one means through an educational savings account to prepare for higher education, we will have Senator Moynihan's provision that will provide for the adult who is studying through the financial assistance of his or her employer, and we will have State-based plans fully tax free providing another vehicle by which Americans, youth and adult, can see that they will have the resources to meet their goal of higher education. That is a good thing. That is consistent with the role of the Federal Government which we have established at least since the GI bill in World War II and the definition of the Federal role in education as established by then Governor Terry Sanford. Another issue which is a very serious one, for which Senator Dorgan has just made an excellent plea, is the issue of school construction. This is a national crisis. The General Accounting Office completed a study a couple of years ago which indicated the cost of bringing existing schools up to appropriate educational standards was in the range of $110 billion to $120 billion. There is not a comparable figure as to what is the cost of building new schools to meet the demands of a growing student population and to keep class size at reasonable levels, but the best estimate is that it is at least the equal of that cost of rehabilitation. I believe that this is an area in which the Federal Government has a role and needs to play a more effective partnership with the States. We are already doing a significant amount to assist the States. We are providing that States have access to tax-free financing when those financings are done directly to a public agency for purposes of public education. In this bill we have a provision which may be arcane but which will be significant, particularly to many small and rural school districts. And that is a provision that builds upon action taken a year ago in which we allow a school district that issues no more than $10 million per year in tax-exempt bonds to keep the difference between the interest that is earned as a lender of the funds prior to paying construction vendors and the interest which it pays to the bondholders. As an example, a typical school district might issue a bond issue and pay 6.5 percent interest to bondholders who do not have to pay tax on this interest received. For the period of time before it actually begins to spend that money to construct a school, it may be able to loan that money for 8.5 percent. This would allow the school district to keep that 2 percent differential, which is referred to as arbitrage. This proposal will make this arbitrage rebate exemption available to districts issuing up to $15 million in bonds, rather than the current $10 million. This will be particularly valuable to those small school districts who only occasionally are in the business of building that elementary school that they may only construct once every 50 years in order to meet their needs. Another important provision which I think will be, if adopted, the beginning of a new and creative approach to public education construction assistance from the Federal level is called the private activity bonds. Private activity bonds are bonds issued by a public agency on behalf of a private concern in order to serve a public purpose. These bonds today are primarily used in areas such as airports, seaports, mass transit facilities, water and sewer facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing for low-income and affordable housing. Those are the kinds of areas in which this type of financing is currently available. By the adoption of a provision which is in this bill, we will make this available for the first time to public schools. The irony is that under provisions that are already in effect, private schools, both at the higher education level and at the primary and secondary level, are benefiting by private activity bonds. This creates parity by allowing public schools for the first time to participate directly in private activity bonds. Some examples of how this might work--let me give an example that is currently in a stage of finalization in Orange County, Orlando, FL, which is the home of one of the most rapidly expanding school populations in the country. I ask if I could have 3 more minutes to close.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator. In the Orange County school district a proposal that is close to becoming a reality involves the school district working with the private developer who will build a public school which will be co-located with a YMCA facility. The school district would make payments on the building at 2 percent interest for 5 years. At the end of that 5-year period the school district will receive the building and lease out space to the YMCA, a creative example of financing co-location, being able to use the school as a means of meeting a variety of the needs of the children of that community. This use of private activity bonds will accelerate the creativity and innovation of school districts, particularly those that are facing crushing demands by escalating student population. This provision in the legislation before us has a cost of approximately $400 million. If I had a criticism, I would say both of these provisions, the one for the small and the rural schools and that for the fast- growing schools, are inadequate to the challenge. But in the one case it is building on progress that we made last year, on the other it is starting a new departure which I think will have tremendous long-term benefit. So it is for provisions like those that I will vote for this legislation. It is my hope, as I indicated, that with the good will and effort of people like Senator Coverdell, and Members of my side of the aisle, that in conference we can take the ideas that are consistent with our tradition of a Federal role in education, build upon them, shape them, and bring them to the point that they can serve important, constructive purposes for the youth of America; with those ideas which may have been introduced, I would say, more for theater than for serious public policy, they can be discharged and will not cause the good ideas to be placed in jeopardy. I want this legislation to become law. I want to see the benefits in terms of access to higher education, school construction, and the other valuable provisions which are included in this bill to be made available to the children and communities of America. Therefore, I will vote for this legislation. And I wish it well as it moves on to the next stages of its journey. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the 1998 Defense Authorization Bill contains a provision, which I introduced as an amendment, that requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the Cuban threat to United States national security. The bill requires the Secretary to report to Congress on this assessment by March 31, 1998. The report has been delayed, and it now appears that the report will be released after Congress begins the Easter recess. While the final report has not been released and no member of Congress has yet been briefed on its content, a draft report was leaked to the press and several articles have appeared over the past few days. I am concerned that this information was leaked to the press before the report was provided to Congress. Members of Congress are now in the position of having to respond to these press reports without the benefit of knowing the actual contents of the report. Since Congress will not be in session for over two weeks and our ability to respond to the report will be limited, I would like to take this opportunity to provide some context for the report and for the reason that I requested it. Cuba, under Fidel Castro's dictatorial regime, has a well documented history of threatening the national security of the United States. From the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the Mariel Boatlift, to the Brothers to the Rescue shootdown, the pattern of provocation and threat to the well being of Americans is clear. Unfortunately what is also clear is a pattern of unpreparedness on the part of the United States to respond to Cuban provocations. In fact, NBC News reported that President Clinton was constrained in responding to the Brothers to the Rescue shootdown because of a fear of Cuban counterattacks. It was my intention that this report would force the Defense Department to assess Cuban capabilities to threaten the United States and, since Castro has a long record of using his capability against the United States, prepare contingency plans to respond to any threat from Cuba. We should not be caught off guard, unable to respond again. Press reports that the Department of Defense assessment finds no national security threat from Cuba are very troubling. Just two years ago, Cuban Air Force MiGs shot down two unarmed civilian aircraft over international waters, killing three United States citizens. Although U.S. forces monitored the entire event, no U.S. forces were able to respond. Our advanced fighter aircraft never got off the ground. Equally as troubling as this type of conventional threat are the non- traditional threats posed by Cuba. Biological and chemical weapons, intelligence collection activities, immigration crises, drug trafficking, and dangerous nuclear and information warfare programs all pose national security threats to the United States. At the same time, U.S. capability to deal with these threats continues to erode. A series of base closure decisions have reduced capability in the areas that provide the most direct capacity to respond to Cuban provocations. With the realignment of Homestead Air Force Base and Key West Naval Air Station, we are in a worse posture than in 1996 when the shootdown occurred. Mr. President, let me mention a few of the known Cuban capabilities that cannot be overlooked. First, a significant conventional military capability exists that can harm United States interests, as demonstrated by the 1996 shootdown. In addition, Jane's Defense Weekly reported last summer that Castro is training elite special force units in Vietnam which are prepared to attack U.S. military targets during a final confrontation. NBC News reported in 1995 that Cuba has operated a special military training school since the mid-1980's named the Baragua School in Los Palacios, Pinar del Rio, in a region known as El Cacho. It reportedly trains some 2,500 men and specializes in commando attacks and infiltration of other countries. Castro's capability to produce weapons of mass destruction is even more worrisome, particularly his ability to produce biological weapons. There is no question that the capability exists. Cuba has a developed pharmaceutical industry and a network of biological ``institutes'' which could be used for more than simply scientific research. Many of Cuba's engineers and scientists have been trained in former-communist countries such as East Germany and Russia and have ample training to cultivate biological weapons. Biological weapons are the easiest to conceal and acquire because of the dual-use nature of the technology. Another major threat to U.S. national security is the intelligence collection facilities in Cuba that can intercept all electronic transmissions, emanating from the east coast of the United States. The 28 acre Russian intelligence facility at Lourdes has two electronic satellite dishes aimed at the United States which can intercept phone calls, faxes, and computer data from the entire Eastern seaboard. Russia and Cuba renegotiated a $200 million annual lease for the site in 1995. According to U.S. intelligence analysts, one dish listens in on general U.S. communications, the other is used for targeted eavesdropping. The facility employs 800 Russian technicians and linguists. An example of the danger this facility poses to U.S. national security is the fact that during the Gulf War, the station's specialists intercepted the details of the U.S. military battle plans and were prepared to disclose these plans to Iraq and other U.S. enemies. The Russians have spent nearly $3 billion on Lourdes and sources say that the Russians are upgrading its reach. In addition, the operation at Lourdes is extremely sophisticated. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the Russians program the computers at Lourdes to listen for specific phone numbers. When they detect those lines are in use, the computers automatically record the conversations or transmissions. For priority targets, an alarm signals a Russian linguist who will actually listen in. The Castro regime has also used mass migration as a policy tool. There have been two major refugee crises which have posed a security threat to the U.S. In 1980, 125,000 Cubans came to the U.S. in the ``Mariel Boatlift.'' In 1994, another 32,000 Cubans left Cuba by boat and were picked up at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard. In the Mariel crisis, the Cuban government encouraged criminals and mental patients to leave, causing additional security problems for the United States. The problem of dealing with a large influx of refugees, whether criminal or not, gives Castro a weapon he can use to threaten the United States. Mass immigration represents a form of leverage Castro can use to extract concessions from the U.S. on a number of issues. Cuba also has a dormant nuclear capability that can threaten the United States. Sergei Shoigu, Minister of Emergency Situations in Russia, has recently confirmed that Russia and Cuba will forge ahead to finish constructing the Juragua nuclear plant on Cuba's south coast. The Juragua facility is known to be unsafe in both construction and design. A nuclear accident at Juragua would send a radioactive cloud over the lower tier of the U.S. to Texas or up to the East Coast to Washington, D.C. within the first four days, depending on the season and prevailing winds. According to a National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration study, an estimated 50-80 million Americans from Florida to Texas could be exposed to dangerous levels of radioactivity. The U.S. State Department lists Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. Cuba also regularly conducts political, social, and economic interactions with countries listed on the State Department's List of Terrorist Nations, including Libya, Iran, and Iraq, giving it access to these countries' illegal supplies of weapons and biotech products. These activities, all just 90 miles off our shores, must be considered as a threat to U.S. national security. Mr. President, it is clear that Cuba has the capability to threaten U.S. national security. Castro's track record of provocations and attacks should be a warning that he will use whatever capabilities he has. We must take these threats seriously and ensure that we can adequately respond to any Cuban provocation. The Constitution requires us to provide for the common defense of the American people, and we must never shrink from that responsibility. The threats posed by Castro's Cuba are obvious. What must be made clear is an adequate plan to deter and defend against such threats.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Lautenberg's amendment to increase funding for the protection of the environment and our nation's natural resources. This important amendment would establish an environmental reserve fund, so that receipts from a reinstated Superfund tax can be used for environmental protection initiatives. The environmental and natural resources programs funded in the President's Budget are critical to our efforts to protect these resources which are so vital to our society. Several critical programs proposed by the President are not included in the Budget Resolution. Among others, these include operations and maintenance funds for the administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System and program support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's execution of the Endangered Species Act. Both of these programs are critical to the State of Florida and our ability to protect and preserve unique ecosystems, habitats, and species. Today's 93 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System has its roots in the state of Florida. It was public outrage over the devastation of wading bird populations in Florida that led to the establishment of the Pelican Island Federal Bird Reservation in 1903. This action is recognized as the genesis of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Each year, nearly 30 million people visit our National Wildlife Refuges and enjoy activities such as wildlife observation, hiking, fishing, photography, hunting, and environmental education. These lands are home to millions of migrating birds, big game, and hundreds of critically endangered species. In the State of Florida, there are 25 National Wildlife Refuges that are an essential part of our natural heritage. I learned this lesson firsthand in May 1990 when I did my 241st workday at the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island. Working with refuge naturalists, I spent the day surveying the refuge's bird population, cleaning up mangrove areas, reinforcing water retention ponds and speaking with local citizens who had a keen interest in the refuge's future. I also learned that the success of wildlife refuges since 1903 had occurred not because of any action taken by the House or Senate, but in spite of congressional neglect. While Congress has been willing to fund refuges, it had failed to ascribe a mission for the refuge system or clearly define environmental objectives for each individual refuge. This situation was corrected with the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act in 1997. I was pleased to play an instrumental role in this law's enactment. It provides new protection to the more than 500 national wildlife refuges, and is a great step forward in our efforts to preserve the unique species and ecosystems located in these areas. However, these lands must be maintained if they are to remain national treasures. The President has requested an increase of $25.8 million in FY 99 for the Fish and Wildlife Service operation and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These funds would be used in the State of Florida for projects such as protection of the Florida Panther in the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge. They would support the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force, which is working to protect the Florida Keys from invasive exotic plants which threaten the restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem. The current budget resolution does not support this increase. The Lautenberg Amendment, which I have co-sponsored, will help ensure that the National Wildlife Refuge system receives the funds that are so critical to its future. In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, the President's Budget request for an increase of $35.7 million in FY99 for the Fish and Wildlife Service's threatened and endangered species program is a critical element in our ongoing efforts to improve the level of protection of endangered species. As currently written, the Senate Budget Resolution does meet the President's request. Senator Lautenberg's amendment will give us the opportunity to review this decision and provide the required funds to this critical program. I believe that the Endangered Species Act is one of our nation's most critical environmental statutes. While it goes without saying that the Act could be more effective in recovering endangered and threatened species, I believe that the ESA has helped to forestall further declines and possibly even the extinction of many of our most imperiled species. Senate approval of this Amendment will give us the ability to review the current needs of the ESA program and appropriate the required funds to support these programs. Funding for implementation of the ESA is critical both today and into the future. As the Senate considers the Endangered Species Reauthorization Bill introduced by Senators Chafee, Baucus, Kempthorne, and Reid, our commitment to provide funds to support the revisions in the ESA Reauthorization Bill will be essential. Without this commitment, we run the risk of losing an opportunity to boost the worthy cause of endangered species conservation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator John Chafee and Senator Tom Harkin, to introduce the Kids Deserve Freedom from Tobacco Act of 1998, legislation which if passed will have a monumental effect on the number one public health problem facing America's youth: underage smoking. This legislation is the first bipartisan, comprehensive piece of legislation which has the support of the Administration and the public health community. Since the beginning of this school year, more than half a million kids have started smoking. If we don't act soon, another half million children will take up the habit by the start of the next school year. And by its inaction, Congress will have signed their death warrants. In Florida alone, where minors purchase more than 12 million packs of cigarettes each year, 28% of high school students currently smoke cigarettes. Nationally, the number is closer to 35%. The KIDS Act takes a number of strong actions--all of which would be funded by the industry's annual $25 billion payment--to lower the rate of youth and teenage smoking. These include: price increase Because public health experts agree that substantially increasing the cost of cigarettes is the most effective way of keeping adolescents from buying them, the KIDS Act would force the tobacco industry to raise the price-per-pack of cigarettes and other tobacco products by $1.50 over the next two years. In addition to raising the price of tobacco products, the KIDS Act would establish ambitious goals for the reduction of teenage tobacco use. The bill would mandate that the tobacco industry reduce youth smoking by 65 percent over the next ten years--or face as much as $10 billion in annual penalties. States, on the other hand, would be rewarded for reducing teen tobacco use. The KIDS Act would set aside $500 million of bonus money each year for states that meet or exceed annual smoking reduction targets. marketing reforms For decades, the tobacco industry has pushed its products on young Americans both overtly--on billboards and through the prominent sponsorship of sports like auto racing--and subtly, through characters like Joe Camel. Their efforts have been helped by the shockingly easy access that many minors have to tobacco products. Nationally, more than 62 percent of 12-to-17 year-old smokers report that they buy their own cigarettes. Nearly half of those minors were never asked to show proof of age. The KIDS Act would dramatically change the rules governing tobacco advertising and sales. It would limit tobacco companies to black-and- white text advertisements--no more human images, cartoon characters, outdoor displays, sports and entertainment sponsorships, or product giveaways. It would also encourage illegal tobacco purchases by banning vending machines sales of cigarettes and requiring state licensing of tobacco retailers. Stores caught selling to minors would face severe financial penalties. payments to states In addition to the federal money it channels to states through bonus payments, incentives, grants, and federal programs, the KIDS Act would directly distribute almost $200 billion over 25 years--a third of the settlement money--to individual states to spend on a broad array of health and anti-tobacco programs. As a former Governor, I strongly believe that states deserve to be recognized for their efforts to bring the tobacco industry to the table. Without state's efforts, Congress would not be in the position to introduce this bill today. Any legislation contemplated by this Congress must recognize the State crucial role in this process. cap on annual industry payments Unlike last year's national settlement, the KIDS Act would not safeguard the tobacco industry from future lawsuits. It ensures reliable industry payments, so that the industry cannot use the excuse of financial woes to avoid its annual $25 billion commitment. As such, it would require that tobacco firms deposit $4 billion/year into a ``National Victims Compensation Fund.'' Money from that fund would be used to pay victims who settle claims or win judgments against the industry. The industry would also have to pay up to $4 billion/year in any additional claims--a maximum total of $8 billion/year. I want to stress that my colleagues, Senators Chafee and Harkin, and I believe that this is our best and possibly our only chance to get this historic legislation passed. We cannot let this opportunity slip away. A half-hearted, piecemeal effort simply won't do.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I bring to the Senate's attention the distinguished service of the former United States Ambassador to Spain, Richard Gardner. Ambassador Gardner concluded his service on July 12, 1997. During his tenure, Ambassador Gardner performed his diplomatic duties with grace and distinction. As a result of his outstanding work, the relationship between the United States and Spain has been immeasurably strengthened. The ambassador has received praise and high marks for his exemplary performance from a number of observers. For example, Spanish journalists have commented on his successful efforts to increase private donations for student exchange program, which provide expanded opportunities for cultural and academic interaction between United States and Spanish citizens. In a more formal capacity, Ambassador Gardner's efforts facilitated an improved, and mutually beneficial, trade relationship between our countries and enhanced relations between our respective governments. One aspect of Ambassador Gardner's work of which I am very familiar is his instrumental role in establishing the United States-Spain Council. Founded in 1995, the Council has grown to become an important institution for the development and enhancement of United States-Spain relations. Its mission is to encourage understanding of our shared interests and to promote constructive relations and cooperation between the Spanish and American governments on a variety of important issues, including, trade, intellectual property rights, and education. Currently, I am the chairman of the council. Its membership includes a diverse group of business, academic, and government leaders. Mr. President, Ambassador Gardner served his country with great distinction and conducted himself in a manner worthy of the respect and admiration of all Americans. Diplomats serve as liaisons and are the most visible representatives of their home countries. In this capacity, Ambassador Gardner exemplified the best our country has to offer. He will be sorely missed by the many colleagues and friends he has left behind. Luckily, he will continue to serve our country through his work in the private sector and on the United States-Spain Council. I ask that an article titled ``Hasta Siempre, Mr. Gardner,'' which first appeared in the Spanish periodical Gaceta de los Negocios, be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Gaceta de los Negocios, June 30, 1997] Hasta Siempre, Mr. Gardner (By Carlos Rodriguez) A great ambassador is leaving on July 12 to return to his career as an attorney and distinguished Columbia University professor. He and his wife Danielle are leaving behind so many friends and so much affection in Spain that they will surely return often to the country that has conquered them and that they have come to understand and love. Richard N. Gardner has imbued his diplomatic mission with culture and has achieved excellent relations with both the last Gonzalez government and the first Aznar government. Three years and nine months have flown by for those of us who have had the opportunity to enjoy his intellectual stature, his sense of humor and his warmth. He is, however, above all a professor and wants to return to his Chair and his students, which is both comprehensible and praiseworthy. He has also been enriched somewhat during this stay among us, not only in friends but also in his use of our language, only a few words of which he spoke when he arrived and which he now speaks easily and with visible pleasure. The Ambassador of the United States is not just another diplomat in Spain, not just because of the overwhelming dimension of the world power that he represents, but also because relations between our two countries are quite special and the American friend has long sought to help Spaniards have a better life and live in freedom. The Embassy was a point of reference for decades, until the unwarranted, adolescent anti-Americanism bias and simplemindedness of twenty or thirty years ago melted away. America is too large and varied to correspond to a stereotype, but above all else it is a great beacon of freedom. With Gardner and, it must be said, almost always before, embassy parties have brought together politicians from all the democratic parties, journalists from the different stables, intellectuals and business persons on friendly terms; all given equal treatment simply as Spanish friends. As a professor, Gardner has given special care to cultivating cultural and educational relations. During his mandate the Fulbright scholarship program has seen spectacular growth. The Ambassador has used his charm to garner increasingly more commitments from Spanish sponsors. He knows the importance of having so many young researchers in different fields not only benefiting from the U.S. system of higher education, but at the same time opening up bridges to the rich variety in the American lifestyle. Professorial exchanges will further enhance this project. This instinct for cultural, social and economic relations, without which government relations would be rigid and bureaucratical, has resulted, for example, in the recent creation of the U.S.-Spain Council, which held its first meeting last November in Toledo and will meet again in Washington at the end of October this year. And, of course, there is the endless hosting of luncheons, dinners, breakfasts and receptions that has made this Embassy a forum for meeting and dialog. Aznar's trip to the United States was an important achievement in Gardner's mandate. A succession of errors and misunderstandings prior to the visit did not help create the best atmosphere in Washington for the visit. Nonetheless, thorough preparation and careful agenda design made the two- hour meeting with Clinton cordial and quite satisfactory in content. Gardner was working on principles of State as what he often states is in his view the job of an ambassador: to be the eyes and ears of his president. Trade and capital movements are at the forefront of relations between our two countries. The work has not been all intellectual. During Gardner's term, access to the U.S. market has been achieved for Spanish products as important as the Talgo train, serrano ham, canned tomatoes and tuna fish, and strong investment flows have been generated in the privatization of large companies such as Telefonica. During these past three years and nine months. Gardner has honored the opinion pages of Gaceta de los Negocios, as have other distinguished members of the Clinton Administration, and been an avid reader of its news, reports, and commentary. He is a man concerned with intellectual discovery and understanding, two important values that he has at all times put to work in his diplomatic mission to our country. The Spain that Ambassador Gardner has known and grown to love is no longer an isolated, different nation, insistent upon licking its wounds from 1898, but rather a modern, democratic country with a strong, recognized presence in at least four major areas: the European Union, NATO, Latin America, and the Mediterranean. It is precisely its special relations with Spain which open up better possibilities for the United States in all of these quite relevant areas. Richard N. Gardner is now going to leave his position right after an important event relating specifically to one of these areas, the NATO Summit, to be held in Madrid on July 8 and 9, and which, as the Ambassador himself has stated, ``aptly symbolizes the emergence of Spain on the European scene.'' He will, therefore, be working intensely up to the very end of his mandate, a symbol of his personal dedication to this Latin country that will bid him not good-bye, but hasta siempre.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in this period for morning business, I would like to discuss with my colleagues a provision which will be contained in the legislation introduced by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, relative to education. This provision relates to public school construction. Mr. President, as you and others in this Chamber and millions of Americans know, we are facing a near crisis in terms of the construction of public school facilities. Too many communities in America have schools which are crumbling because of age and inattention. Other communities have dramatically oversized classrooms because they do not have the financing to build enough new schools to meet their exploding student population. There is no simple answer to this issue. The General Accounting Office recently estimated that it would cost about $112 billion to repair our schools sufficiently to bring them into good condition. Additionally, although there is no single authoritative source of information on the need for new school construction, that cost is also estimated in the range of $110 billion to $120. It is clear to me, and to others who have looked at this issue, that we need to look for opportunities to provide flexibility to school districts in responding to this massive need for school construction and repair. If I can quote Mr. Roger Cuevas, who is the superintendent of schools for Dade County, FL, when he recently wrote: It is important that financing options be defined in as flexible a manner as possible and especially not be limited to general obligation bonds . . . Flexibility in the choice of the type of eligible debt financing, as well as the capacity of the program to adapt to State-by-State differences are as critical to all school districts in the Nation as is its funding level. The provision which will be contained in the legislation of Senator Coverdell provides for public school construction the same opportunities which are currently available in a wide variety of other public-need areas; namely, airports, seaports, mass transit facilities, water and sewer facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, qualified residential rental projects, local furnishing of electric energy and gas, heating and cooling facilities, qualified hazardous waste facilities, high-speed inter-city rail facilities and environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating facilities. In all of those 12 separate areas, the U.S. Congress has provided assistance in the financing through what is known as private activity bonds. This legislation adds a 13th category for public schools. This new category builds upon the experience that already exists from using private activity bonds to finance transportation, energy, environmental, and housing projects. What would be the essence of this proposal? This proposal would provide to each State the opportunity to issue tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance construction of public schools. These bonds would be administered at the State level, just as are the other 12 categories of private activity bonds. States containing school districts experiencing high growth would be allowed to issue bonds each year in an amount equal to $10 multiplied by the population of the State. For example, if a State with high-growth school districts has a population of 5 million, it could issue up to $50 million of bonds to finance school construction. A high-growth school district is defined as one with an enrollment of at least 5,000 students and the enrollment has grown by at least 20 percent during the five years previous to the year of bond issue. States without high-growth school districts would still receive $5 million of bond authority. Potentially, this could provide to the Nation bonding capacity for public school construction of about $2.5 billion a year, if each State fully participates. That would be a noticeable contribution toward the enormous need that the Nation faces for financing the construction of new public schools and the rehabilitation of old ones. More important, it would provide a new source of financing for public school construction, because the nature of private activity bonds involves a partnership between a public agency--in this case typically a local school district--and a private entity. A typical example of what would be anticipated under this legislation would be that a school district needing to build two new elementary schools would solicit requests from the private sector for the construction and financing of those schools. The school district would select which of the proposals that best served the interest of that school district. The school district would then enter into a leaseback arrangement where the private builder would construct the building, would be responsible for paying the indebtedness on the private activity bonds and, at the end of the lease term, would turn the facilities over to the school system with no additional consideration. This would allow the school district to take advantage of private sector innovation in design and construction, as well as the private sector involvement in financing. I might say that I had an opportunity in October of last year during one of my monthly work days to work on McNiclo Middle School in Hollywood, FL, which was being built under this type of arrangement, although the financing was the conventional type of general obligation bond financing. In this case, because the contractor was doing a design-and-build project, the construction time and cost were less than they would have been under standard procedures. There happened to even be a third benefit. This school was being built not only to meet educational standards, but also was being further strengthened so that it would serve as a community shelter in the event of a hurricane or other emergency situation. This legislation seeks to encourage and accelerate those kinds of innovative public- private relationships. So, with this description, I hope that my colleagues will see the benefit of the flexibility and creativity that this provision will bring and the appropriateness of the Federal Government offering this degree of assistance to our public schools, just as it has in a whole variety of other public activities. The Federal Government is not intruding into areas of curriculum or personnel or other aspects of education which are the appropriate responsibility of the local school district. But we are extending a hand to States and local governments to help them see that all American children go into a classroom which is safe, which is adequate, which meets modern educational needs and into a school in which there are sufficient classrooms so that there can be that relationship between the teacher and the student that will advance quality education. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Williams, Maria Piza-Ramos, and Jeff Pegler be accorded privilege of the floor for the pendency of the debate on Senator Coverdell's legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I appreciate that generous comment, which is typical of my friend from Virginia, with whom I was pleased to join as an original cosponsor of what we call step 21. Step 21 had as a central goal to provide that, of those funds which came into the Federal highway trust fund, 95 percent of those funds would be returned to the contributing States, thus leaving 5 percent of the total to be available to meet national needs as determined by this Congress. When we were debating step 21 and the various alternatives for the Federal highway program, it was determined that there was not an adequate amount of money left to meet national needs, if 95 percent was returned to the contributing State. So two changes were made. One change was to lower the percentage from 95 percent to 90 percent, and the second was to change the base upon which the percentage was applied from the amount that each State contributed to the fund to the amount which each State received from the fund for formula programs, which now is that approximately 91 to 92 percent of all of the funds which will be distributed will come through one of these formula programs. The rationale for stepping back from that original goal of equity of 95 percent of contributions into the fund was that there were insufficient dollars in order to be able to achieve that level of equity. The concern of many today is that we have now added almost $29 billion to the original $145 billion of highway funds, and, yet, we have made only marginal progress towards that original goal of equity. We still are going to utilize not a percentage of the money going into the fund but rather a percentage of money coming out of the fund under the formula programs. And we have increased the percentage from 90 to 91 percent, albeit even that is going to be subject to a variety of factors that will occur over the next 6 years as to whether a true 91 percent is established as the floor. Madam President, I believe we missed a major opportunity, if these new funds were going to be available, to use them, first, to achieve the goal of equity, which was established as a principal objective, and then to use the balance for those things that we considered to be of a national priority. So, with that history, I conclude that the best course of action for the additional funds which were adopted in 1993 as a deficit reduction measure, not a transportation measure, and which we have failed to use in the way to maximize the achievement of equity, is to say the appropriate thing to do is to follow the advice of our colleagues who spoke with such eloquence in 1993 and 1996 and terminate this tax at the Federal level. Let us give our citizens tax relief. It would represent tax relief of approximately $6 billion a year to the American motorist by repealing this tax at the Federal level. I would not suggest that the American motorist should immediately begin putting those dollars in their wallets, because we are essentially releasing that capacity to the States so the States can decide whether they wish to utilize these funds by levying part or all of this as a State gasoline tax, therefore using those funds to meet needs which people in the States and communities of America identify to be of the greatest priority. I believe that is in the spirit of this new Congress and its emphasis on placing authority and responsibility as close to the people as possible. I believe we can say that we are able to meet our national transportation responsibilities with approximately an additional $23 billion above what we are spending in the current transportation bill without having to utilize this 4.3 cents. I believe that we would come closer to our goal of equity by allowing the States, unencumbered by all of the Federal constraints and regulatory requirements and the sheer expense of shipping people's money from Maine to Washington and then back to Maine--let it stay in Maine and not be subjected to any of the transactional costs of coming through Washington. Let the people of Florida, let the people of North Dakota, California, West Virginia, Virginia, Montana, and every other State decide what they want to do with the 4.3 cents if they choose to levy it for their transportation needs. So I commend my colleague for his tenacity in raising this opportunity to provide tax relief, enhance federalism, and to truly recognize that we have celebrated the victory of completion of the Interstate System, that we are in a new era, and that we should recognize and act as if we are in that new era. Thank you, Madam President. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I say enough is enough. We have finished our task. We have built the Interstate Highway System that was President Dwight Eisenhower's vision. This is the time to begin to ask the question: What is the Federal role in transportation? What is our next step in terms of meeting the transportation needs of the American citizen? I do not believe it is appropriate at this time to be doubling the amount of Federal expenditures over what we were spending as we were completing the very purpose for the Federal highway trust fund, which was the Interstate Highway System. Third, there is the issue of: Is this a fair tax? The Senate has considered that issue at great length. We considered it in 1993 when the tax was imposed as part of the deficit reduction program. This tax was not passed to add to the spending on the transportation system. Rather it was to reduce the Federal deficit. In 1996, recognizing that fact and recognizing that we were moving rapidly toward an elimination of the deficit, and at a time when there was a spike in gasoline taxes, our then colleague, Senator Bob Dole, offered an amendment to repeal the 4.3 cents. On the 14th of May of 1996, we had a vote on a cloture motion to close down debate and to proceed to vote on Senator Dole's proposal to repeal the 4.3 cents. I might say that I opposed the repeal of the 4.3 cents because I felt we needed to retain those funds in the General Treasury until such time as we had in fact achieved the objective of eliminating the Federal deficit. But 54 of our 100 Members on the 14th of May of 1996 voted to invoke cloture and bring to a vote the proposal to repeal the 4.3 cents tax. There were many arguments made at that time in favor of that repeal. I will quote from one of those, which was given by the senior Senator from Texas which related to the issue of the fundamental unfairness of this 4.3 cents tax. The Senator stated on the 14th of May of 1996: We, therefore, created through this gasoline tax an incredible redistribution of income and wealth. The Clinton gasoline tax imposed a new burden on people who drive to work for a living in order to subsidize people who, by and large, do not go to work. We have an opportunity in this pending amendment to solve this problem by repealing this gasoline tax, thereby eliminating this burden on people who have to drive their cars and trucks great distances to earn a living. In my State it is not uncommon for someone to drive 40 miles from where they work, and, as a result, a gasoline tax imposes a very heavy burden on them. We have an opportunity to eliminate this inequity by repealing the 4.3-cents-a- gallon tax on gasoline--a permanent gas tax that for the first time ever went into the general revenue to fund social programs instead of paying for highway construction. Madam President, we have that same opportunity again today to repeal this 4.3-cents tax, which is imposing this very heavy burden on many of our people. Finally, Madam President, on the issue of a national system or a parochial transportation system at the original recommended authorization level of $145 billion, which is the level recommended by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we would have been spending approximately $23 billion more on the highway system under ISTEA II than we spent on the highway system under ISTEA I since 1991. So there was a substantial increase in highway spending already recommended. On top of that, we have added an additional almost $29 billion of highway spending. How have we chosen to distribute this money? I come from a State which, since the inception of the highway system, the Interstate Highway System in 1957, has been a donor State; that is, we have contributed more each year into the fund than we have received back from the fund. This was to be the year in which we would make a major breakthrough in terms of equity in the distribution of funds. I will say in commendation to the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Rhode Island, and the Senator from Montana that we have made substantial progress in ISTEA II in terms of that goal of equity.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Mack, for having brought this fundamental issue to the Senate at the earliest opportunity that was available to have this matter debated. It had been our understanding and advice that it was on the amendment offered by the Finance Committee that the amendment that Senator Mack brings to us today to repeal the 4.3-cent deficit reduction tax, which was adopted in 1993, would be germane and appropriate. So we offer it to our colleagues at this earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I believe that there are a number of fundamental issues raised by this amendment. The first of those is the obvious, and that is that the United States is a federal system. We have the opportunities for the needs of our people to be met, as the Presiding Officer knows well as a former Governor of one of our States, by action at the State level, or by action at the national level where appropriate, and as illustrated by the transportation system, a merger of State and Federal initiatives. So the statement that is made that if we repeal these funds, it will have a serious adverse and continuous effect on our transportation system ignores the fact that (a) these funds were not levied for the purposes of transportation and, up until this proposal that is before us today, these funds have never been spent for transportation, and, third, that we are in essence returning to the States the fiscal capacity which they can decide to use for transportation. So we are not, in this amendment, hostile to the needs of transportation. We are particularly aware of those needs in a rapidly growing State. Our position is, however, that this degree of capacity to meet transportation needs should be at the States' discretion. The States should decide whether they wish to use this amount of resources to expand their transportation needs, and we should not arrogate that decision to us to make by shifting a tax initially levied for one purpose, deficit reduction, to a new purpose, transportation spending. Second is the enormity of the decision that we are about to make. The Interstate Highway System and the current Federal highway trust fund both came into being in the mid 1950s during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower. President Eisenhower had a great vision for this Nation, which was that it would be linked by a system of the most modern highways. The Nation accepted that vision and, in 1957, we launched this goal. In that year, 1957, as we were starting the National Interstate Highway System, this Congress determined that the appropriate level of funding to commence the project was $2.1 billion. That is what was spent in the first year of the Interstate Highway System. Fifteen years later, in 1973, the system was well underway. Its tentacles were beginning to reach across America. Suburbs were being united by modern highway systems with major cities. Cities were being connected. Regions were being brought together in a national interstate highway system upon which we spent, in the 1973 Highway Act, $5.9 billion a year, for a total under that act of $17.8 billion for 3 years. In 1976, as the system continued to expand, in my State, as it was reaching down the east coast, what is now Interstate 95, we were spending $8.7 billion a year on the Interstate Highway System. In 1978, as we were beginning to complete some of the major systems within our largest cities, we were spending $12.8 billion on the Interstate Highway System. Those numbers continued to grow until, by 1987, we were spending $14 billion a year on the Interstate Highway System, and I am pleased to announce that we brought it to completion. In fact, the last segment of the original Interstate Highway System that was completed was I-595 in Broward County, FL. A celebration should be held at that site where the last bit of asphalt and concrete were poured to complete a half century of America's effort to build the Interstate Highway System. When we passed ISTEA I in 1991, we declared this to be the first post-Interstate Highway System bill. Our actions were not quite consistent with the rhetoric because, in the first year after completion of the Interstate Highway System, we spent $20.4 billion a year on highways--more than $6 billion more than we were spending in the last year when we were completing the Interstate Highway System. Now, today, we are proposing to pass a bill, which started at $145 billion over a 6-year period, which has now reached $173 billion over a 6-year period, for an average over that time of $28.8 billion. So we are going to be spending, in the period that is now almost 10 years after the completion of the system, approximately $14 billion, more than 100 percent more per year than we were spending in the last year of completing the Interstate Highway System. (Ms. COLLINS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will soon send to the desk an amendment which will provide for three additional criteria to be added to the current five criteria that are utilized for purposes of the Federal Transit Authority's determination of the validity of a New Start application. These three additional criteria are population density and current transit ridership, the technical capability of the applicant to construct the project, and the degree of local financial commitment to the project, including the degree to which the local community has overmatched the project. The purpose of these three are to add three relatively quantifiable factors to the five existing factors that will be used by the Congress and by the Federal Transit Administration in determining which of the New Start applications are appropriate for Federal participation. I urge adoption of the amendment on behalf of Senator Murray and myself.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Alon Street of my office be granted the privilege of the floor throughout debate of ISTEA II.

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