Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. If there are no other persons wishing to speak on this amendment, I urge a voice vote. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Rhode Island a question? I have a unanimous consent request to ask a member of my staff to be on the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Lee from the Florida Department of Transportation be given floor privileges throughout the consideration of ISTEA II.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it has been a great pleasure to work with the Senator from Oregon over the last several months in the development of this legislation. I share the assessment of the Senator from Montana. It will be seen as one of the most important new ideas in highway transportation planning. Basically, it is consistent with the evolution that has occurred within the American environmental movement. It wasn't too many years ago that a principal goal of many who described themselves as being environmentalists was to achieve the goal of no growth, no action. It was essentially a negative and defensive posture. As the environmental movement has become a more pervasive part of our society in the way in which we look at our responsibility, it has become a movement which attempts to shape the future in an affirmative way that is sensitive to environmental considerations rather than stagnate in the status quo. I believe this amendment is part of that evolutionary process, because what it basically says is, let us ask everyone who is a stakeholder in a major Federal participatory transportation project to sit down at the table when the project is in its conceptual form. If there is a problem with this project that is going to render it incapable of ever being permitted, let's put that on the table at the beginning, and, if the project will fundamentally change it, relocate it to a more appropriate site, or whatever is necessary. If, on the other hand, it is not inherently flawed but there are going to have to be modifications in the design or construction techniques, let's know that at the beginning of the process so that everyone is operating from a position of candor and openness. Unfortunately, the opposite of what I just described is what happens too often today; that is, that these requirements are not disclosed until the project has been many years in planning and design and millions of dollars spent, and then you find out that there are these flaws, or fatal conditions, or issues that will require a similar investment of time and money for redesign. So I think this is an amendment that will advance the modern approach to environmentalism and reduce the legitimate public anger and frustration when they see millions of dollars and years of time being discarded because of issues raised at the end of the process, and it will build a new level of confidence and a higher level of environmental sensitivity in our transportation planning. So I am strongly supportive of this amendment. I appreciate the leadership that so many Members of this Chamber have given to this. I particularly commend my friend and colleague from Oregon and urge that the full Senate join in support of this and that we see when this bill is negotiated with the House of Representatives that the provision will be included in any final legislation that is sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Lory Zastrow and Jeff Pegler of my staff be accorded floor privileges for the duration of my comments.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator D'Amato, Senator Moynihan, Senator Biden and others in cosponsoring the innocent spouse legislation. Under existing law, married taxpayers are liable for their spouse's Federal income taxes when they file a joint return. This is true regardless of which spouse earns what income, which spouse is responsible for expenses that qualify as deductions or credits. Each spouse is potentially liable for all of the couple's tax debts. You might ask why do couples agree to take on each other's debts. There are probably multiple reasons. For one, many couples want to intermingle all their finances as part of their marriage. Most couples filing jointly reduce the couple's overall tax liability. Most married couples do not contemplate a subsequent separation or divorce and unpaid taxes when they file a joint return. Unfortunately, separations and divorces do occur. It is in dividing up the assets and liabilities of the marriage that many women discover that their ex-husband erred on the joint tax return and that the IRS is in pursuit of the unpaid taxes. The Finance Committee hearings and reports issued by the Treasury Department demonstrate that many times the IRS does not focus on collecting money from the ex-husband either because he cannot be found as easily or because he has few assets or income-earning potential. Instead, it is the innocent spouse who becomes the target of the collection effort. This is true despite the fact that when the return was completed and filed the wife may have had little or no income and may have had little, if any, knowledge about the couple's financial affairs. If I could use as a specific example that illustrates literally thousands of cases, one of the witnesses who testified before the Finance Committee at the February 11, 1998, meeting was Ms. Karen Andreasen of Tampa, FL. Here is her story. Unfortunately it is all too topical of many American women. Ms. Andreasen testified that her husband, who ironically was a former IRS employee and financial consultant operating his own business, had handled most of the family's financial affairs including completing tax returns. When the couple decided to divorce, Ms. Andreasen learned that the couple had significant potential IRS debts. She testified that her ex-husband had forged her name on joint returns, yet the IRS was holding her responsible for the tax liability resulting from her ex- husband's business. Even though Ms. Andreasen had no individual income for the years in question, she had been saddled for several years with the obligation for her husband's taxes, and her home today remains subject to a tax lien. Why doesn't our current tax law provide protection for innocent spouses such as Ms. Andreasen? Well, Congress did pass what is called the innocent spouse rule several years ago. Under this law, in certain narrow circumstances, a spouse can be relieved of liability for taxes assessed by an IRS audit after a joint return is filed. However, its provisions are so complicated and narrow that few can meet all of its tests. There is a growing acceptance of the principle that now Congress needs to change the rules. In 1995, the American Bar Association recommended the legislation which is being introduced today. The House has taken a different approach. It has adopted as part of its IRS reform bill liberalizations in the innocent spouse rule for purposes of providing relief to more innocent spouses. Even the Treasury and the IRS have acknowledged the need for reform and have already taken steps to provide taxpayers with more information regarding the current innocent spouse rules. They have also suggested several statutory and regulatory changes which would expand the innocent spouse provisions to accommodate more cases. However, neither the House bill nor the Treasury's proposals will solve the underlying problem. We must grant individuals fair treatment where the individual spouse makes an error on the return. To do that, we must allow individuals to take responsibility for their individual share of the joint tax liability. The legislation which has been introduced today provides that all married taxpayers be taxed only on their individual incomes. The bill would not eliminate joint filing. It would not change the tax tables to eliminate the reduced taxes that many times accompany joint filings. The bill does simply say that if the IRS asserts a tax deficiency on a joint return, each spouse will be individually liable for his or her portion of the liability. In other words, income and deductions attributable to activities will be used to calculate the husband's portion of the tax liability and a similar calculation of the wife or ex-wife's portion of the tax liability. The bill specifically provides that it will be applicable to all open tax cases, including ones originating in years prior to the date of enactment. Mr. President, this legislation provides that its application will be retroactive to current open tax cases. This approach will guarantee relief for Karen Andreasen and the many other spouses who have, through no fault of their own, been placed in extreme financial and emotional distress. Repealing the joint liability of spouses will simply the tax system and it will give the IRS clear guidance as to where to go to collect tax debts. I want to thank Senator Roth for organizing a thorough examination of the IRS in preparation for markup of the Internal Revenue Service reform bill. The legislation Senator D'Amato, others, and I introduce today was generated as a result of that thorough investigation. Mr. President, there have been unknown thousands of innocent spouses who have been subjected to extreme emotional and financial distress solely because they filed joint returns with their spouses. This legislation establishes fundamental equity in providing that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions, but will not be held accountable for actions or conduct of another. By applying this legislation retroactively to currently open cases, we will provide significant and immediate relief to those who have been unfairly charged with taxes they did not rightly owe. We will establish the principle that liability for an erroneous item tracks responsibility and will force the IRS to collect taxes from the person who rightfully owes those taxes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator D'Amato, Senator Moynihan, Senator Biden and others in cosponsoring the innocent spouse legislation. Under existing law, married taxpayers are liable for their spouse's Federal income taxes when they file a joint return. This is true regardless of which spouse earns what income, which spouse is responsible for expenses that qualify as deductions or credits. Each spouse is potentially liable for all of the couple's tax debts. You might ask why do couples agree to take on each other's debts. There are probably multiple reasons. For one, many couples want to intermingle all their finances as part of their marriage. Most couples filing jointly reduce the couple's overall tax liability. Most married couples do not contemplate a subsequent separation or divorce and unpaid taxes when they file a joint return. Unfortunately, separations and divorces do occur. It is in dividing up the assets and liabilities of the marriage that many women discover that their ex-husband erred on the joint tax return and that the IRS is in pursuit of the unpaid taxes. The Finance Committee hearings and reports issued by the Treasury Department demonstrate that many times the IRS does not focus on collecting money from the ex-husband either because he cannot be found as easily or because he has few assets or income-earning potential. Instead, it is the innocent spouse who becomes the target of the collection effort. This is true despite the fact that when the return was completed and filed the wife may have had little or no income and may have had little, if any, knowledge about the couple's financial affairs. If I could use as a specific example that illustrates literally thousands of cases, one of the witnesses who testified before the Finance Committee at the February 11, 1998, meeting was Ms. Karen Andreasen of Tampa, FL. Here is her story. Unfortunately it is all too topical of many American women. Ms. Andreasen testified that her husband, who ironically was a former IRS employee and financial consultant operating his own business, had handled most of the family's financial affairs including completing tax returns. When the couple decided to divorce, Ms. Andreasen learned that the couple had significant potential IRS debts. She testified that her ex-husband had forged her name on joint returns, yet the IRS was holding her responsible for the tax liability resulting from her ex- husband's business. Even though Ms. Andreasen had no individual income for the years in question, she had been saddled for several years with the obligation for her husband's taxes, and her home today remains subject to a tax lien. Why doesn't our current tax law provide protection for innocent spouses such as Ms. Andreasen? Well, Congress did pass what is called the innocent spouse rule several years ago. Under this law, in certain narrow circumstances, a spouse can be relieved of liability for taxes assessed by an IRS audit after a joint return is filed. However, its provisions are so complicated and narrow that few can meet all of its tests. There is a growing acceptance of the principle that now Congress needs to change the rules. In 1995, the American Bar Association recommended the legislation which is being introduced today. The House has taken a different approach. It has adopted as part of its IRS reform bill liberalizations in the innocent spouse rule for purposes of providing relief to more innocent spouses. Even the Treasury and the IRS have acknowledged the need for reform and have already taken steps to provide taxpayers with more information regarding the current innocent spouse rules. They have also suggested several statutory and regulatory changes which would expand the innocent spouse provisions to accommodate more cases. However, neither the House bill nor the Treasury's proposals will solve the underlying problem. We must grant individuals fair treatment where the individual spouse makes an error on the return. To do that, we must allow individuals to take responsibility for their individual share of the joint tax liability. The legislation which has been introduced today provides that all married taxpayers be taxed only on their individual incomes. The bill would not eliminate joint filing. It would not change the tax tables to eliminate the reduced taxes that many times accompany joint filings. The bill does simply say that if the IRS asserts a tax deficiency on a joint return, each spouse will be individually liable for his or her portion of the liability. In other words, income and deductions attributable to activities will be used to calculate the husband's portion of the tax liability and a similar calculation of the wife or ex-wife's portion of the tax liability. The bill specifically provides that it will be applicable to all open tax cases, including ones originating in years prior to the date of enactment. Mr. President, this legislation provides that its application will be retroactive to current open tax cases. This approach will guarantee relief for Karen Andreasen and the many other spouses who have, through no fault of their own, been placed in extreme financial and emotional distress. Repealing the joint liability of spouses will simply the tax system and it will give the IRS clear guidance as to where to go to collect tax debts. I want to thank Senator Roth for organizing a thorough examination of the IRS in preparation for markup of the Internal Revenue Service reform bill. The legislation Senator D'Amato, others, and I introduce today was generated as a result of that thorough investigation. Mr. President, there have been unknown thousands of innocent spouses who have been subjected to extreme emotional and financial distress solely because they filed joint returns with their spouses. This legislation establishes fundamental equity in providing that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions, but will not be held accountable for actions or conduct of another. By applying this legislation retroactively to currently open cases, we will provide significant and immediate relief to those who have been unfairly charged with taxes they did not rightly owe. We will establish the principle that liability for an erroneous item tracks responsibility and will force the IRS to collect taxes from the person who rightfully owes those taxes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 1585 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, for purposes of introduction of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, in introducing the Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1998. This legislation will create six additional U.S. District Court judgeships in Florida--two in the Southern District and four--three permanent and one temporary--in the fast-growing Middle District of Florida. Mr. President, make no mistake: Florida's federal courts are in the midst of a full-blown crisis. Currently, the Miami-based Southern District has sixteen judges. The Middle District, which also includes the Jacksonville, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, Sarasota, and Fort Myers metropolitan areas, has eleven. Because this number of judgeships is too small to meet the increasing demand of Florida's rapidly growing population, judges face overwhelming caseloads, and the public faces a denial of justice. Prosecutors and law-enforcement personnel are stymied in their efforts to mete out swift justice. Civil litigants are forced to endure unreasonable waits to bring their cases to resolution. Prominent legal and judicial officials all over Florida have told us that this is not a tenable situation. For example, Middle District U.S. Attorney Charles Wilson, whose office is responsible for bringing alleged criminals to trial, has said that the judicial shortage has a ``negative and severe'' effect on the work of federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Floridians are not alone in their concern about overcrowded court dockets. In September 1996, the Judicial Conference of the United States--the principal policy-making body of the Federal judiciary, which is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and comprised of Federal judges from throughout the United States--asked Congress to create four new judgeships in the Middle District and two in the Southern--precisely what our legislation would authorize. Senator Mack and I are introducing our bill so that Congress can meet the urgent request of the Judicial Conference, and provide the additional judicial resources needed for these two U.S. District Courts to meet their increasing caseload. We are certain that many States have justifiable concerns about overcrowded Federal District Court dockets. I hope that this Congress this year will meet those needs by considering and adopting the recommendations that the Judicial Conference of the United States submitted to us almost a year and a half ago. But we also believe that the urgent nature of Florida's judicial crisis makes our State a special case. I am going to be saying some things about Florida of which I am not proud. They are not positive. But they happen to be the facts as to the circumstances that our Federal courts face. First, Florida has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the Nation. For the last several years, the Judicial Conference has proposed all recommendations for increased judgeship based on weighted filings--a number that takes into account both the total number of cases filed per judge and the level of case complexity. I would like to note that this is a retrospective look. The Judicial Conference looks at prior history, in terms of evaluating future needs. In the case of the State of Florida, because of the rapid growth, which I will soon detail, and because of the time required--a year and a half has already passed since the Judicial Conference did the calculations that I will soon review--Congress has not yet acted on its recommendation to authorize these additional positions. It would then require the process of actually filling those vacancies. So, there will be a gap of many months between the time that the numbers were calculated based on past history, as to what the need was, before relief in the form of an actual human being sitting at a bench to render justice will be in place. But looking back to the 1996 numbers, the Southern District's weighted filings stood at 588 per judge. This was 33 percent above the national average of 435 weighted filing per judge. In the Middle District, the story was even worse--623 weighted filings per judge, a figure that represented one of the highest in the entire nation. As a result, nearly 1,800 criminal defendants have cases pending in the Middle District. The story is even worse on the civil side of the docket, where more than 6,200 cases have yet to receive final disposition. In fact, the situation is so dire that Middle District Chief Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich has announced plans to shut down the Federal courthouses in Jacksonville and Orlando for 3 months this summer and recruit their judges, and any others from around the Nation who can spare the time, to tackle the growing civil case backlog in the Tampa Bay area. Innovative measures like this may help to alleviate the problem in the short-term. But the Florida caseload is not going to experience a slowdown in growth anytime soon, and the judicial backlog will get worse unless Congress takes preventative action for the long term. Second, this legislation recognizes that Florida's largest Federal judicial districts are responsible for a massive area that includes nearly 80 percent of Florida's 15 million residents. The Southern and Middle Districts combined jurisdiction stretches from Key West--the southernmost city in the continental United States-- north to include Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Melbourne, Fort Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, and Jacksonville. Florida adds over 200,000 new permanent residents every year. Between 1980 and 1995, for example, the middle district grew by 52 percent, and it is expected to increase even from this elevated new level by an additional 21 percent in the next decade. However, since 1990, the last time Congress approved more judges for Florida, our United States district courts have not received any additional resources from the Federal Government to cope with this growth. Third, this proposal will assist the work of law enforcement officials. If we are committed to assuring that criminals face punishment that is both just but swift, we must be willing to provide resources to all aspects of the judicial system. In both the southern and middle districts, drug prosecutions and other serious criminal cases make up a large percentage of the total case files. For example, both the southern and middle districts have been designated by this Congress as high-intensity drug trafficking areas. These antidrug zones generate a substantial number of lengthy multidefendant prosecutions, and the addition of judges will help law enforcement officials and prosecutors in their fight against drug crimes. In addition, the Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials throughout Florida, but especially in the southern and middle districts, are being forced to spend more time combating the cheats, the fly-by-night operators and the other criminals who are engaged in a systematic campaign to defraud and plunder our Medicare and other health care programs. Mr. President, as shocking as it is, it has been estimated that nearly 20 percent of all Medicare expenditures in the Southern District of Florida are lost to fraud. Nearly 30 percent of all Medicare fraud nationwide takes place in the State of Florida. In November of 1997, the new southern district U.S. Attorney Tom Scott pledged to create a comprehensive antifraud task force made up of local, State and Federal law enforcement officials to fight health care fraud. I am optimistic that this new effort will be successful in increasing the number of fraud offenders brought to justice. I am hopeful that it will deter others from entering this pernicious activity. But I am very concerned that unless the southern and middle districts have the adequate number of judges, many of these charlatans will not receive the swift and severe punishment they deserve. It is vital that we act quickly to resolve this crisis. Since 1991, filings have gone up 21 percent in the middle district; 30 percent in the southern district. Congress and the White House must be vigilant in their shared responsibility for recommending, nominating and confirming Federal judicial nominees. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Orrin Hatch, of the Judiciary Committee, and its membership, including our current Presiding Officer, for their recognition of the overcrowding problems facing Florida's Federal district courts. Last year, the Senate confirmed three Federal district judges--Donald Middlebrooks of West Palm Beach, Alan Gold of Miami, and Richard Lazzara of Tampa--to replace three judges who had retired or taken senior status. From late September of 1997, when Judge Lazzara was confirmed, until yesterday when the President nominated William P. Dimitrouleas of Fort Lauderdale and Judge Steven Mickle of Gainsville to fill openings in the Southern and Northern Districts of Florida, we had no judicial nominations pending before the Senate. Senator Hatch's and Members' leadership and understanding and their determination to address Florida's special needs are very much appreciated by the residents of our State. U.S. Federal district courts are the first stop for most citizens involved in the Federal judicial system. Most Federal cases are disposed of at the district court level. It is essential that these citizens have their claims heard in a timely manner. As the court caseload increases nationally, the Senate must be willing to expand judicial positions where they are needed. Our legislation is simple, sound and will serve the interest of America and will serve the interest of our State of Florida. I look forward to working with Senator Mack, with yourself and with the other members of the Judiciary Committee on this matter, Mr. President. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this much-needed legislation. For thousands of crime victims, for thousands of civil litigants in Florida's southern and middle judicial districts, justice delayed is rapidly becoming justice denied. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in introducing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that two letters which I have received--one from the middle district chief judge, Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich, and one from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, Mr. Charles Wilson--be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, in introducing the Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1998. This legislation will create six additional U.S. District Court judgeships in Florida--two in the Southern District and four--three permanent and one temporary--in the fast-growing Middle District of Florida. Mr. President, make no mistake: Florida's federal courts are in the midst of a full-blown crisis. Currently, the Miami-based Southern District has sixteen judges. The Middle District, which also includes the Jacksonville, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, Sarasota, and Fort Myers metropolitan areas, has eleven. Because this number of judgeships is too small to meet the increasing demand of Florida's rapidly growing population, judges face overwhelming caseloads, and the public faces a denial of justice. Prosecutors and law-enforcement personnel are stymied in their efforts to mete out swift justice. Civil litigants are forced to endure unreasonable waits to bring their cases to resolution. Prominent legal and judicial officials all over Florida have told us that this is not a tenable situation. For example, Middle District U.S. Attorney Charles Wilson, whose office is responsible for bringing alleged criminals to trial, has said that the judicial shortage has a ``negative and severe'' effect on the work of federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Floridians are not alone in their concern about overcrowded court dockets. In September 1996, the Judicial Conference of the United States--the principal policy-making body of the Federal judiciary, which is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and comprised of Federal judges from throughout the United States--asked Congress to create four new judgeships in the Middle District and two in the Southern--precisely what our legislation would authorize. Senator Mack and I are introducing our bill so that Congress can meet the urgent request of the Judicial Conference, and provide the additional judicial resources needed for these two U.S. District Courts to meet their increasing caseload. We are certain that many States have justifiable concerns about overcrowded Federal District Court dockets. I hope that this Congress this year will meet those needs by considering and adopting the recommendations that the Judicial Conference of the United States submitted to us almost a year and a half ago. But we also believe that the urgent nature of Florida's judicial crisis makes our State a special case. I am going to be saying some things about Florida of which I am not proud. They are not positive. But they happen to be the facts as to the circumstances that our Federal courts face. First, Florida has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the Nation. For the last several years, the Judicial Conference has proposed all recommendations for increased judgeship based on weighted filings--a number that takes into account both the total number of cases filed per judge and the level of case complexity. I would like to note that this is a retrospective look. The Judicial Conference looks at prior history, in terms of evaluating future needs. In the case of the State of Florida, because of the rapid growth, which I will soon detail, and because of the time required--a year and a half has already passed since the Judicial Conference did the calculations that I will soon review--Congress has not yet acted on its recommendation to authorize these additional positions. It would then require the process of actually filling those vacancies. So, there will be a gap of many months between the time that the numbers were calculated based on past history, as to what the need was, before relief in the form of an actual human being sitting at a bench to render justice will be in place. But looking back to the 1996 numbers, the Southern District's weighted filings stood at 588 per judge. This was 33 percent above the national average of 435 weighted filing per judge. In the Middle District, the story was even worse--623 weighted filings per judge, a figure that represented one of the highest in the entire nation. As a result, nearly 1,800 criminal defendants have cases pending in the Middle District. The story is even worse on the civil side of the docket, where more than 6,200 cases have yet to receive final disposition. In fact, the situation is so dire that Middle District Chief Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich has announced plans to shut down the Federal courthouses in Jacksonville and Orlando for 3 months this summer and recruit their judges, and any others from around the Nation who can spare the time, to tackle the growing civil case backlog in the Tampa Bay area. Innovative measures like this may help to alleviate the problem in the short-term. But the Florida caseload is not going to experience a slowdown in growth anytime soon, and the judicial backlog will get worse unless Congress takes preventative action for the long term. Second, this legislation recognizes that Florida's largest Federal judicial districts are responsible for a massive area that includes nearly 80 percent of Florida's 15 million residents. The Southern and Middle Districts combined jurisdiction stretches from Key West--the southernmost city in the continental United States-- north to include Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Melbourne, Fort Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, and Jacksonville. Florida adds over 200,000 new permanent residents every year. Between 1980 and 1995, for example, the middle district grew by 52 percent, and it is expected to increase even from this elevated new level by an additional 21 percent in the next decade. However, since 1990, the last time Congress approved more judges for Florida, our United States district courts have not received any additional resources from the Federal Government to cope with this growth. Third, this proposal will assist the work of law enforcement officials. If we are committed to assuring that criminals face punishment that is both just but swift, we must be willing to provide resources to all aspects of the judicial system. In both the southern and middle districts, drug prosecutions and other serious criminal cases make up a large percentage of the total case files. For example, both the southern and middle districts have been designated by this Congress as high-intensity drug trafficking areas. These antidrug zones generate a substantial number of lengthy multidefendant prosecutions, and the addition of judges will help law enforcement officials and prosecutors in their fight against drug crimes. In addition, the Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials throughout Florida, but especially in the southern and middle districts, are being forced to spend more time combating the cheats, the fly-by-night operators and the other criminals who are engaged in a systematic campaign to defraud and plunder our Medicare and other health care programs. Mr. President, as shocking as it is, it has been estimated that nearly 20 percent of all Medicare expenditures in the Southern District of Florida are lost to fraud. Nearly 30 percent of all Medicare fraud nationwide takes place in the State of Florida. In November of 1997, the new southern district U.S. Attorney Tom Scott pledged to create a comprehensive antifraud task force made up of local, State and Federal law enforcement officials to fight health care fraud. I am optimistic that this new effort will be successful in increasing the number of fraud offenders brought to justice. I am hopeful that it will deter others from entering this pernicious activity. But I am very concerned that unless the southern and middle districts have the adequate number of judges, many of these charlatans will not receive the swift and severe punishment they deserve. It is vital that we act quickly to resolve this crisis. Since 1991, filings have gone up 21 percent in the middle district; 30 percent in the southern district. Congress and the White House must be vigilant in their shared responsibility for recommending, nominating and confirming Federal judicial nominees. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Orrin Hatch, of the Judiciary Committee, and its membership, including our current Presiding Officer, for their recognition of the overcrowding problems facing Florida's Federal district courts. Last year, the Senate confirmed three Federal district judges--Donald Middlebrooks of West Palm Beach, Alan Gold of Miami, and Richard Lazzara of Tampa--to replace three judges who had retired or taken senior status. From late September of 1997, when Judge Lazzara was confirmed, until yesterday when the President nominated William P. Dimitrouleas of Fort Lauderdale and Judge Steven Mickle of Gainsville to fill openings in the Southern and Northern Districts of Florida, we had no judicial nominations pending before the Senate. Senator Hatch's and Members' leadership and understanding and their determination to address Florida's special needs are very much appreciated by the residents of our State. U.S. Federal district courts are the first stop for most citizens involved in the Federal judicial system. Most Federal cases are disposed of at the district court level. It is essential that these citizens have their claims heard in a timely manner. As the court caseload increases nationally, the Senate must be willing to expand judicial positions where they are needed. Our legislation is simple, sound and will serve the interest of America and will serve the interest of our State of Florida. I look forward to working with Senator Mack, with yourself and with the other members of the Judiciary Committee on this matter, Mr. President. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this much-needed legislation. For thousands of crime victims, for thousands of civil litigants in Florida's southern and middle judicial districts, justice delayed is rapidly becoming justice denied. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleague, Senator Mack, in introducing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that two letters which I have received--one from the middle district chief judge, Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich, and one from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, Mr. Charles Wilson--be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we continue to see positive signs reflecting the strength of our national economy. Thirty-year mortgage rates remain low, consumer confidence is high and unemployment is down. In the midst of these sustained positive trends, America faces new challenges as we approach a new century. Among them: meeting a critical need for skilled technology workers and the continuing effort to move more Americans from welfare to work. We are an innovative people and I'm confident that we can meet new challenges, in part via public-private partnerships. One of the key people in America advancing the concept of public-private partnerships is Mr. Greg Farmer. As Florida's Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Farmer pioneered public-private partnerships at the state level, doing more with less tax dollars. Now in the private sector, with Nortel, Mr. Farmer and his company are helping provide high-tech equipment to schools and technology training to help move people from welfare to work. On January 13, 1998, Mr. Farmer testified before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. I commend his testimony to my colleagues and all those interested in public-private partnerships as a means of reducing welfare dependency and advancing job training. I respectfully ask that his testimony be printed in the Record: The testimony follows: Statement of Greg Farmer, Vice President, Government Relations and International Trade, Nortel Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Farmer, and I am Vice President for Government Affairs and International Trade for Nortel (Northern Telecom). It gives me pleasure to be with you this morning to discuss some of the things Nortel is doing in the Washington, D.C. area to help prepare inner city youth for a fruitful life beyond high school, whether it be college or acquiring a special skill. Bell Atlantic is a household word and all of you are certainly familiar with it. You might not be as well acquainted with Nortel (even though--and I hesitate to say this in case you had a telephone problem this morning--the Senate does have our telephone switch). Nortel is the leading global supplier of fully digital network solutions and services. We design, build and integrate digital networks that communicate voice, data, image and video for customers in the information, communications, entertainment, education, government and commerce markets. Our customers are local and long distance telecommunications companies, businesses, universities, governments, cable television companies, competitive local access providers, Internet services providers and other network operators around the world. We operate in 150 countries around the globe. We have more employees in the U.S. than anywhere else. Here, we are based in Nashville, Tennessee and have major state-of-the-art centers--including research and development, manufacturing, semiconductor and software-engineering facilities--in nine other states. And we have sales and services offices in every state of the union. We count Bell Atlantic as a good customer, and I am pleased to be on the panel today with my friend Bill Freeman. Yesterday the Administration announced a massive public- private effort aimed at high tech training. This was in response to concerns by economists and business leaders that U.S. companies have a critical shortage of skilled technology workers. The initiative, which will include millions of dollars in grants to fund educational programs, comes as a new survey shows that 1 in every 10 information technology jobs in the U.S. is unfulfilled. This comes as no surprise to Nortel. As with other telecommunications companies, education and workforce development is an essential part of Nortel's overall business strategy. Our industry requires highly skilled workers at even the most basic entry level positions. We are constantly looking for opportunities to work with organizations that provide training and enhance our workforce. The Administration ought to take a good look at Capital Commitment. It is a stellar example of a high tech training program that works. It is a shiny gem; a diamond in a rusty crown. And I hope some of those grants will go to Capital Commitment so it can continue the incredible success it has enjoyed in the past. One only need hear the Ricky Mozee story to understand the cascading good this program has for individuals and for our community. Ricky Mozee is a walking, talking welfare-to-work success story. Before finding Capital Commitment in 1992, Ricky was a drug and alcohol abuser, living on welfare in the tough streets of Anacostia. In his own words, he had no future; his family had no future; he was afraid to dream. He was fighting his addictions and looking at an 84 percent unemployment rate in his community. Then he found Capital Commitment. Today, he has a high paying job as a telecommunications supervisor at National Airport. He owns a house in suburban Maryland. He supports a wife and three children. He is a poster boy for what the future could be, if we get it right. When LaVerne and Ernest Boykin established Capital Commitment in 1991, their vision to train inner city youth in telecommunications and life skills and to facilitate job opportunities for them resonated well with our corporate goals. Since that time, Nortel has been actively involved with Capital Commitment. We have observed a dramatic increase in employment opportunities for the unemployed, under- employed, at risk youth and single parents from the District of Columbia. As a result, we have also observed a significant shift of money from public assistance to taxable income. In those early days, we worked with the Capital Commitment management team to identify factors critical for their success and discovered their needs went far beyond financial support. Nortel's support of Capital Commitment since its inception includes: Providing well over $1 million in funding, equipment and personnel resources (switches, computers and state-of-the-art office equipment as well as technical expertise, training materials); Providing management advice and coaching; Taking the lead in turning Capital Commitment into an industry sponsored organization; Establishing a fundraising golf tournament; Working to replicate Capital Commitment in California & Texas; Serving on Capital Commitment's Board (Stuart Mapes, Nortel's National Director of Minority and Women Business Program). In addition, I am pleased to announce today that Nortel will donate and install a new Nortel Central Office Switch to be used for advanced training. We have also worked with Bell Atlantic and other private companies to expand corporate funding of the program. I might add here that one of the most telling successes of this program is the fact that Nortel and other corporate sponsors of Capital Commitment have been diligent in working cooperatively. We work with our customers, such as Bell Atlantic, MCI and Sprint, but also with our competitors, such as Seimens and Lucent, in promoting this program. There is something in it for each of us. Not only does it make us sleep a little easier at night to know that we are being good corporate citizens and helping disadvantaged youth become a part of this dynamic industry; but also, in a cold business sense, we are receiving great benefits too. Nortel and the telecommunications industry in general are in constant need of highly qualified technical employees. Capital Commitment graduates students who are highly trained in these skills. We have hired over 100 Capital Commitment graduates who have proven to be well trained, competent and reliable employees. As a matter of fact, Capital Commitment graduates have a 90+ percent placement rate and an impressive 80+ percent retention rate! This welfare-to-work program really works. There is another aspect to this program which is missing from other traditional welfare-to-work programs. The Boykins teach their students critical lifeskills and stress to their students the importance of ``paying back'' their communities. Many of their graduates return to Capital Commitment to help instruct students, or pay back their communities by being role models for others. So the legacy of Capital Commitment lives on in their graduates and provides long term benefits to the community. I am committed to spreading the word about Capital Commitment. I have personally taken numerous Administration officials through the program. I found that a tour of Capital Commitment makes believers out of all who go there. My goal is to find sources of federal, state and local funding to help this incredible program expand. I would encourage each of you to take time from your very busy schedules to visit Capital Commitment, which is located a few short miles from here. There is nothing any of us can say to you today that will have the impact a personal visit will have. It will, I know, be time well spent. We at Nortel believe very strongly that Capital Commitment is an important and solid example of how business can work within the community to provide increased opportunity for movement from welfare-to-work in highly paid, career oriented jobs in a high growth industry. The need for skilled technicians to enter this industry is growing rapidly so it is incumbent upon us to accelerate efforts to assure continued progress for this important program. Capital Commitment provides opportunities for our most disadvantaged citizens to become productive, well paid workers in this dynamic industry. Having said all of this, there is trouble in paradise. Capital Commitment is a shiny gem but it sits in a rusty crown, badly in need of attention by our policy makers. We at Nortel believe that corporate-community partnerships are the key to educating and gainfully employing a greater number of high skilled workers. However, there is a third critically important partner needed in these job training programs if they are to be successful: the government. I worry that Capital Commitment might not be able to continue because it is lacking financial support of any kind by the government. It is the government's role to encourage programs which take people who are on welfare and turn them into gainfully employed, responsible citizens who pay taxes and otherwise contribute to their community. This is what Capital Commitment does so well. And the corporate community by all accounts has been extremely generous with financial and other resources to help them achieve this goal. The corporate community benefits from the program; we strongly support the program. And while the Government also has much to gain from these efforts, there has been little effort by the government to encourage this activity. Capital Commitment is a victim of its own success. Ernest and LaVerne Boykin triumphed in setting up a high quality welfare-to-work program that actually works. It takes people off of welfare and helps them get jobs in a growing industry. Capital Commitment is a public-private partnership without the public. The government has simply not done its part in encouraging this most successful program. In my previous two stints at public service, I learned first-hand the benefits of converting traditional governmental functions into public-private partnership. As Florida's Commerce Secretary I converted several functions within the department to public-private partnerships, including film and motion picture promotion, sports promotion and tourism promotion. Finally the economic development function was converted to a public-private partnership (Enterprise Florida), completely eliminating the Department of Commerce, which might appeal to some of you. As U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel and Tourism, I convened the first-ever White House Conference on Tourism charged with planning strategy for the industry for the next five years. The number one recommendation was that the agency be converted to a public-private partnership. The reason is that a public-private partnership leverages maximum resources in the most positive way possible. It achieves the public purpose the government wants to achieve; it brings the discipline of business to the operation; it provides accountability; it is cost effective by nature because business simply will not be a part of something which is not effective. History shows public-private partnerships are almost always more effective in terms of achievement and cost than government working alone. As an aside, you may all be aware that there is an effort underway in D.C. to revive a plan endorsed by the White House to create a National Capital Revitalization Corporation, a separate legal entity that would oversee development activities in struggling commercial areas across the city. The corporation, a public-private partnership, would be charged with drafting a strategic economic development plan for the city and would have the power to acquire property, issue bonds and conduct other activities which would ensure economic growth happens. I endorse this plan because I believe there is no where else in this country that needs a public-private effort to revitalize the economy more than the District of Columbia. Capital Commitment would fit well into this new economic plan. But what we have with Capitol Commitment now is a public-private partnership in which the public has not been present. The results have a tremendous public return. Over 500 former welfare recipients now are earning high wages, paying taxes and contributing to the economic development of their communities. A proven success record. Yet there has been precious little government investment and apparently no realization of the value this program has in achieving a critical government goal. Before I conclude, let me briefly tell you about some of our other efforts to be helpful in D.C. Nortel recognizes that computer-based learning is crucial in preparing our students for the 21st Century. So, 18 months ago, we began a program to assist the D.C. school system. We began by providing computers to Burrville Elementary and Hine Junior High School. Nortel also provided the expertise and training necessary to ensure the computers were operable and the teachers knew how to instruct the children. Access to the Internet was an essential ingredient. The computers were most successful at Burrville and Hine, well run schools with excellent teachers and children eager to learn. However, we soon learned that much more needed to be done. To respond to this need, we assembled a coalition of federal and city government officials and private corporations aimed at providing inner city D.C. schools with computers, software and Internet access. We met to discuss how, working together, we could provide on an ongoing basis, computers, access to the Internet, software and technical support to inner city schools. It soon became apparent, however, that there was no accounting system for tracking what the D.C. schools presently have or what they need. So we had to start from scratch. Before we could be truly helpful, we first needed to get a handle on what the D.C. school system already had, what was working and what was not and exactly what was needed. A more structured organization was required. This led to the creation of Partners in Technology (PIT), a non-profit foundation established to foster technology-based public-private partnerships in the D.C. school system. I am pleased to serve as Chairman of the Board of PIT. The goal of PIT is to improve the quality of education in our local educational institutions by increasing the level and maximizing the impact of community investments made by the private sector. We learned from experience that to be most effective takes more than just donating equipment. PIT is funded by corporate charter members and is seeking matching funding for programs and operations from private, public and federal sources. Although in its infancy, PIT--in partnership with the District Branch of Tech Corps--has already initiated: Researching and developing plans for an ``acceptable'' standard work station/computer that will meet the overall education needs of the student. This includes working closely with the D.C. Public Schools in providing assistance and consultation on strategic planning and inventory management. For instance, PIT is in discussions with DC Tech Corps in looking at ways to develop effective technology training programs for the faculty. PIT understands it cannot be effective unless we have trained educators that can and want to teach students how to use the tools of technology in order to enhance their education. Establishing a pilot project which is being tested to allow schools to turn over obsolete computer equipment for a credit by a computer remanufacturer. This credit may be used to purchase state-of-the-art equipment and comprehensive computer training for teachers. In addition, local non-profit remanufacturers have expressed an interest in working to provide repair training and intern opportunities for D.C. students in the schools and at their facilities. Coordinating the establishment of a computer program within the D.C. public schools which will establish student clubs with faculty-adult supervision. These are just a few of the activities already undertaken by PIT. High on our list is to assist the D.C. Public Schools in compiling an accurate inventory of all computer/phone equipment and systems. This will include an inventory of each school's human and corporate resources. This is a critical step in providing the necessary information for intelligent and effective planning. We plan to be more active as we develop and believe we can become a highly effective link for the D.C. public schools. We want to ensure that D.C. has the computer equipment they need and the teachers have the resources they need to ensure proper operation of the equipment, access to the super highway and training so D.C. students are assured of having a good, solid education which will prepare them for a good future. We have coupled our efforts with Capital Commitment and PIT. Capital Commitment has arranged office space for PIT in its facility, and we have provided computers for both organizations to enhance their effectiveness. Again, thank you for allowing me to present to you this morning to discuss these two important programs, both of which could be easily transported to other parts of the country where there is also critical need. We encourage other corporations to join us in ensuring that organizations like Capital Commitment and PIT are securely funded. And we would also encourage our policy makers to take a careful look at programs like these for government funding. These are programs where a little bit of funding can go a very long way in enhancing economic development to the betterment of all citizens. We need to provide the shiny gem that is Capital Commitment with a gleaming crown so it can beacon far and wide to others who can copy this program and get into the business of turning lives around. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my friend Senator Mack to introduce legislation authorizing the expansion of the Black Archives Research Center and Museum at the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in Tallahassee, Florida. This legislation is significant not only to the Florida A&M but to national heritage. Since 1977, the Black Archives at FAMU has been charged with collecting all materials reflecting the African-American presence and participation regionally, nationally and internationally. The Black Archives Research Center and Museum is the largest repository of African-American history in the Southeast. In 1997, Time magazine and Princeton Review chose Florida A&M University as the college of the year. This recognition is well deserved. Since 1992, Florida A&M University has vied with Harvard in enrolling the most National Achievement Scholars. (Florida A&M leading in 1992 and 1995 and Harvard in 1993 and 1994.) The Black Archives includes over 500,000 artifacts, manuscripts, art works and oral history tapes pre-dating the Civil War, through the early days of the civil rights movement to today. Unfortunately, this fine center finds itself in disrepair. The bill Senator Mack and I introduce today would authorize the design, and construction of a facility to better house these priceless documents for future generations. Our bill would stipulate that the State of Florida match the Federal investment dollar for dollar, making it truly a Federal-State partnership. Specifically, our bill would make the Black Archives Research Center and Museum eligible for up to $3.8 million in Federal funding beginning in 1998 and any succeeding years. I ask unanimous consent that material relating to the Black Archives Research Center and Museum be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the courtesies of my colleague and good friend from Vermont.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues on reaching an agreement on what has been a very long and difficult negotiation relative to Central American and other immigrants. I note that we have in the Chamber at this time two of the Members of the House of Representatives who have been most active in achieving this result that is close to being reality, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart. I extend my special thanks to them and congratulations on the success of their hard work. Many months ago, these two fine Members of the House of Representatives, and others, including Senator Mack, Senator Spencer Abraham, and Senator Kennedy, became interested in legislation that would provide justice and fairness for individuals who, due to duress, extreme hardship and political strife in their native countries, had been welcomed into our Nation by President Reagan and President Bush. I was proud to be part of this effort. The agreement reached with our distinguished colleagues covers not only Central Americans, but also other groups who have struggled against oppression. While I strongly believe that this agreement is positive and is in the American tradition of fair play, it is an incomplete resolution. It is incomplete because there is another relatively small group of persons who have the same characteristics as those who are being recognized for whom legislation is being passed today as part of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. That group is Haitians. There are 11,000 Haitians who, because of their credible asylum claims, were flown to the United States by our Government during the early 1990's. These were men, women and children, Mr. President, who had left Haiti because of the oppressive circumstances there. Mr. President, this group of approximately 11,000 Haitians, who because of credible asylum claims were allowed to enter the United States in the early 1990s, were part of a much larger group of over 40,000 Haitians who had been detained at sea and temporarily were in a refuge status at our Guantanamo naval station. These were the 11,000 of that larger group who were found, based on screenings administered by the Immigration Naturalization Service, to have a credible claim of persecution should they be returned to Haiti. The balance of those who could not meet that standard were in fact repatriated to Haiti. There is a second group of similar size and significant overlap in terms of the individuals who are part of the asylum backlog. These are those who have had pending asylum cases since 1995. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation today which is entitled the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1997, with my colleague Senator Mack, Senator Kennedy, Senator Abraham, and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. Mr. President, fairness demands that we include this group in our legislation. First, this is a relatively small group. The two groups together, the Guantanamo asylees and those who have a pending asylum case combined, represent approximately 15,000 to 16,000 individuals. This, in relationship to those who we are providing essentially the same status to today, is a relatively small number. Second, this group has been extensively screened. As I indicated, the Guantanamo asylees represent approximately one out of four of those persons who were, at one time, at the Guantanamo Naval Base and who were found to have a credible legitimate fear of persecution in Haiti. I might say, Mr. President, as one who visited Haiti several times during this very tense period in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the level of human rights abuses, the savagery, the violence were extreme. And these persons who established if they had been returned to Haiti at that time, that they would have been significantly at risk, they were at risk in a very legitimately violent and hostile environment. Deportations of this group, Mr. President, have already begun. Asylum officers have begun to send back members of the Haitian community to Haiti. And so there is a sense of urgency of dealing with this legislation before any additional injustices are committed. And finally, the Guantanamo Haitians have established families in the United States. Many have had children born here who are United States citizens. They have opened businesses. They have built homes. They have strengthened our community here in the United States. They contribute to the diversity, the racial and social harmony, the positive traits of our increasingly multicultural Nation. Mr. President, I would hope someday to have the opportunity to invite you to join me at Miami Dade Community College, which happens to be the largest community college in the Nation based on enrollment. It is inspiring to go to that campus, one of their several campuses, and see the number of young Haitian men and women who are living the American dream of hard work and education and advancing themselves so that they can better serve the interests of their families and our Nation. This is a quality group of people who have made and will make significant contributions to our Nation. They are making a contribution in many ways today. As an example, we have in Haiti a large number of Americans of Haitian heritage who are currently serving as mentors to the newly established police force in Haiti. They are helping to make an organization which did not exist a few years ago because there was no police force, all police activities were done through the military and often done in a very aggressive manner. We are attempting to build a new institution to provide for security in Haiti. A key element of that are the large numbers of Americans of Haitian background who are assisting in that important effort within their former country. That is just one dramatic example of the contributions which this community is making to their new home in America. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues today to continue the fight for justice and fairness. We have taken a significant step in that effort tonight with the passage of the District of Columbia appropriations bill, which seems to be an odd place for such an important immigration bill to be lodged, but it is placed there. This legislation will continue that effort by applying a similar standard of fair treatment to this important population of Haitians within our Nation. I send to the desk the legislation and ask for its referral.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 1504 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the procedure, which I discussed with the majority leader, was that as soon as we completed action on the District of Columbia appropriations bill, I would be recognized for purposes of offering legislation relative to Haitian immigration. I wonder if it would be an appropriate use of this time, and I so ask unanimous consent, while awaiting Senator Leahy's arrival, to offer that legislation at this time.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the business currently pending before the Senate be set aside temporarily for purposes of introducing legislation with the understanding that at such time as the Senator from Vermont arrives, the Senator from Vermont will have the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the relationship between the United States and Spain is the oldest one in North America. Almost 500 years ago--in 1513--Spanish Explorer Ponce de Leon and his crew in search of a Fountain of Youth discovered North America. What they found was a treasure of a different kind--a land that Ponce de Leon named ``La Florida.'' In the four centuries since then, the histories of the United States and Spain have been inextricably linked. While there have been periods of estrangement and even hostility, the United States and Spain are ``natural allies.'' As we approach the end of this century, the cultural, political, and economic ties between the United States and Spain have never been stronger, nor more mutually beneficial. This reinvigorated relationship is especially visible in the active relations, frequently in close collaboration, of Spain and the United States in Latin America. To build on this exceptional period of positive relationship, the United States--Spain Council was formed in May 1996 by Vice President Al Gore and the President of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar. The Council was formerly established at an organizational meeting held in Toledo, Spain in November 1996. The Council established itself as a forum in which Spanish and American citizens, including leaders in government business, education, and culture could discuss the state of the United States--Spain relationship. In April of 1997 the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Fundacion Consejo Espana-Estados Unidos, Mr. Jaime Carvajal and the then Chairman of the United States--Spain Council, Bill Richardson, signed an agreement of the common goals regarding their intent to: promote cooperation between Spain and the United States in the economic, trade, business, scientific and cultural fields; improve knowledge about each other's country and the image of the United States in Spain and of Spain in the United States; propose to their respective governments actions aimed at developing relations between the two countries and adopt other initiatives which would contribute to the progress and growth of relations between the United States and Spanish societies. This past October 31 through November 2, 1997 the Council met here in Washington for two and one half days and in New York for an additional day on November 3, 1997. The meeting was attended by many prominent members of the Council from both nations, which led to a candid and thought provoking discussion of the topics on our agenda. These topics included United States--Spain Trade and Investment Analysis of Direct Investment Practices, Spanish and United States images: Origins and Reasons, Strengthening United States--Spanish Ties, the Role of Civil Society (Educational and Cultural exchanges), Intellectual Property and Internet in Spanish. The members of the Council agreed to undertake a challenging agenda short and long objectives, all intended to advance United States and Spanish relations. I would like to thank Vice President Al Gore, Spanish Deputy Prime Minister of the Economy and Finance, Mr. Rodrigo Rato, Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Abel Matutes, and Stuart E. Eizenstat, US Under Secretary for Economic Business and Agricultural Affairs, and other distinguished presenters, for their meaningful participation in our meeting. I also take this opportunity to thank the two Executive Directors of our Council, Ambassador Diego Asencio and his Spanish counter part, Emilio Cassinello Auban. Ambassador Asencio and his Assistant, Elia Garcia-McComie did an outstanding job of bringing together all the ingredients essential to a productive meeting. It is important that my colleagues in the Senate and the people of the United States understand this special relationship, which is old in historical terms and yet new because it is being reinvigorated by this renewed attention to its importance. We must recognize that the United States with its growing Spanish speaking population, is a logical bridge between Latin America and Spain. We must take advantage of this moment in history to strengthen cultural and educational ties as well as promoting investment opportunities for both countries. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts of speeches at the meeting by Vice President Gore, Mr. Rato, Mr. Eizenstat, and the entire text of Mr. Matutes' address be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues on reaching an agreement on what has been a very long and difficult negotiation relative to Central American and other immigrants. I note that we have in the Chamber at this time two of the Members of the House of Representatives who have been most active in achieving this result that is close to being reality, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart. I extend my special thanks to them and congratulations on the success of their hard work. Many months ago, these two fine Members of the House of Representatives, and others, including Senator Mack, Senator Spencer Abraham, and Senator Kennedy, became interested in legislation that would provide justice and fairness for individuals who, due to duress, extreme hardship and political strife in their native countries, had been welcomed into our Nation by President Reagan and President Bush. I was proud to be part of this effort. The agreement reached with our distinguished colleagues covers not only Central Americans, but also other groups who have struggled against oppression. While I strongly believe that this agreement is positive and is in the American tradition of fair play, it is an incomplete resolution. It is incomplete because there is another relatively small group of persons who have the same characteristics as those who are being recognized for whom legislation is being passed today as part of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. That group is Haitians. There are 11,000 Haitians who, because of their credible asylum claims, were flown to the United States by our Government during the early 1990's. These were men, women and children, Mr. President, who had left Haiti because of the oppressive circumstances there. Mr. President, this group of approximately 11,000 Haitians, who because of credible asylum claims were allowed to enter the United States in the early 1990s, were part of a much larger group of over 40,000 Haitians who had been detained at sea and temporarily were in a refuge status at our Guantanamo naval station. These were the 11,000 of that larger group who were found, based on screenings administered by the Immigration Naturalization Service, to have a credible claim of persecution should they be returned to Haiti. The balance of those who could not meet that standard were in fact repatriated to Haiti. There is a second group of similar size and significant overlap in terms of the individuals who are part of the asylum backlog. These are those who have had pending asylum cases since 1995. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation today which is entitled the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1997, with my colleague Senator Mack, Senator Kennedy, Senator Abraham, and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. Mr. President, fairness demands that we include this group in our legislation. First, this is a relatively small group. The two groups together, the Guantanamo asylees and those who have a pending asylum case combined, represent approximately 15,000 to 16,000 individuals. This, in relationship to those who we are providing essentially the same status to today, is a relatively small number. Second, this group has been extensively screened. As I indicated, the Guantanamo asylees represent approximately one out of four of those persons who were, at one time, at the Guantanamo Naval Base and who were found to have a credible legitimate fear of persecution in Haiti. I might say, Mr. President, as one who visited Haiti several times during this very tense period in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the level of human rights abuses, the savagery, the violence were extreme. And these persons who established if they had been returned to Haiti at that time, that they would have been significantly at risk, they were at risk in a very legitimately violent and hostile environment. Deportations of this group, Mr. President, have already begun. Asylum officers have begun to send back members of the Haitian community to Haiti. And so there is a sense of urgency of dealing with this legislation before any additional injustices are committed. And finally, the Guantanamo Haitians have established families in the United States. Many have had children born here who are United States citizens. They have opened businesses. They have built homes. They have strengthened our community here in the United States. They contribute to the diversity, the racial and social harmony, the positive traits of our increasingly multicultural Nation. Mr. President, I would hope someday to have the opportunity to invite you to join me at Miami Dade Community College, which happens to be the largest community college in the Nation based on enrollment. It is inspiring to go to that campus, one of their several campuses, and see the number of young Haitian men and women who are living the American dream of hard work and education and advancing themselves so that they can better serve the interests of their families and our Nation. This is a quality group of people who have made and will make significant contributions to our Nation. They are making a contribution in many ways today. As an example, we have in Haiti a large number of Americans of Haitian heritage who are currently serving as mentors to the newly established police force in Haiti. They are helping to make an organization which did not exist a few years ago because there was no police force, all police activities were done through the military and often done in a very aggressive manner. We are attempting to build a new institution to provide for security in Haiti. A key element of that are the large numbers of Americans of Haitian background who are assisting in that important effort within their former country. That is just one dramatic example of the contributions which this community is making to their new home in America. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues today to continue the fight for justice and fairness. We have taken a significant step in that effort tonight with the passage of the District of Columbia appropriations bill, which seems to be an odd place for such an important immigration bill to be lodged, but it is placed there. This legislation will continue that effort by applying a similar standard of fair treatment to this important population of Haitians within our Nation. I send to the desk the legislation and ask for its referral.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I rise today to speak in support of legislation which Senator Mack and I filed last night, legislation that will bolster one of the most important components of our Nation's high-technology economic future, the space industry. For more than 40 years, my home State of Florida has been pleased, proud, and gratified to have been the launching pad for our Nation's exciting adventure in space. Our friend and colleague, Senator John Glenn's historic Friendship 7 mission was launched from Cape Canaveral. So were Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, and Michael Collins on their way to the first manned Moon landing. For the last 16 years, the world has watched intently as dozens of space shuttle missions have started at the Kennedy Space Center. But as we prepare for the increasingly high-technology, dynamic world of the 21st century, space will be more than just a place of exploration. In the 4 decades since the Soviet Union launched sputnik in October 1957, space has become a site for tremendous scientific innovation. Ball-point pens, velcro, and numerous other consumer products that make our lives easier are a direct result of the space program. Medical research has also reaped tremendous benefits from our time in space. And satellite technology has led to revolutionary advances in the way we forecast weather, protect the environment, and communicate with each other. Space may also revolutionize the way we transport goods and services and pursue other economic and business opportunities. In recognition of these advances, Senator Connie Mack and I are introducing the Commercial Space Act of 1997. Cape Canaveral is also home to the Florida Spaceport Authority, which is set to launch its first commercial payload from Launch Complex 46 in January 1998. This will be a milestone event in our State's history, and the bill that I am introducing today aims to modernize the laws that govern the United States' emerging commercial space industry. It is urgent that we develop a clear Federal policy for this important enterprise. For much of the last 40 years, our Nation's experiment in space has been in the exclusive domain of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]. The legislation I am offering today recognizes that space is now a public and private sector place and enterprise. It aims to create a stable business environment for an industry that employs thousands of Americans and generates billions of dollars in economic activity each year. Our bill pursues this goal in several important ways. First, it will reduce the bureaucracy and redtape that plagues our regulation of the commercial space industry. Currently, the oversight of space-related businesses is scattered among multiple federal agencies, and burdens businesses with complex, confusing, and often conflicting rules. It is not an environment that encourages progress and innovation. This bill takes the first step toward clarity by requiring each relevant federal agency to clearly state its requirements for commercial space licensing. That requirement will help space businesses in their efforts to raise capital, develop a consistent business plan, and create new job opportunities within the commercial space industry. Second, our bill encourages federal agencies to act in a more efficient manner by increasing the private sector's involvement in servicing and launching space hardware, in addition to their current role in building rockets and satellites. This will bolster the expansion of the commercial space industry, while at the same time reducing Government costs and saving tax dollars. For example, this legislation would call for NASA to look at the role the private sector may play in operating, maintaining, and supplying the international space station. It would also encourage the conversion of old ballistic missiles into launch vehicles, a use that will reduce storage costs and provide for less expensive commercial space launches. Finally, it is imperative that we update existing Federal law to reflect the rapid pace of technological change. Mr. President, we cannot hope to prepare for the high-tech 21st century if the Federal Government maintains a 20th century mentality. Our laws should be flexible enough to adapt to a world in which new science and technology is created every minute. These goals will be difficult to achieve, however, if we do not recognize the role of State and local governments in reducing space costs. This is especially relevant to Florida, I am hopeful that our legislation will spur a robust and energized commercial space industry. Within 8 years, the number of launches in Florida are expected to double. But this potential growth can only be achieved if there exists a productive working relationship among all entities involved in the commercial space industry, including state and local governments. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to tell you exactly what this legislation will accomplish: This bill will require NASA to submit a report that identifies and examines the prospects for commercial development, augmentation, or servicing of the international space station by the private sector. Private sector involvement in the commercial space industry is likely to reduce the costs of operating, maintaining and supplying the space station and will allow State governments to act as potential brokers in reducing space station costs. We amend the Commercial Space Launch Act and to give the Federal Government the authority to license commercial space reentry activities. This is an essential portion of the bill. Without this legal authorization, commercial reusable launch vehicles will not be allowed to re-enter the atmosphere, a restriction that would stymie the realization of important technological developments and investments by the commercial space industry. This bill reaffirms our Nation's plans to make the Global Positioning System [GPS] a world standard. GPS is a space-based system that individuals can use to determine their precise position on Earth. Although it began as a military/defense system, the GPS applications have expanded to other sectors. In addition, foreign governments are interested in entering this lucrative global market. Therefore, in an effort to protect our economic interests and our national security, it is imperative that the we encourage our President to enter into regional agreements with foreign governments to secure U.S. GPS as the unquestioned global standard. The legislation further requires the Federal Government to purchase both space hardware and transportation services from the private sector. This will encourage innovation within the commercial space industry, while simultaneously promoting greater cost efficiency and protecting our national security. This legislation allows the conversion of excess ICBM's into space transportation vehicles. These missiles cannot be used for defense purposes due to the START treaty. The conversion of these missiles could save taxpayer dollars by eliminating storage costs and providing cost effective launches for small scientific and educational payloads. Mr. President, I was extremely pleased when the House passed its version of this legislation earlier this week. It is my understanding that this legislation will be a priority for the Senate Commerce Committee when Congress returns from recess in 1998. I look forward to working with Chairman McCain, subcommittee Chairman Frist, my colleague, Senator Mack, and other members of the committee and the Clinton administration, to enact this important commercial space legislation. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 1471 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.