Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, these two bills will provide relief for two men who have fought with valor and honor for this country. H.R. 2731 and H.R. 2732 will provide justice for two Americans by correcting the date they became U.S. citizens. One of these men, John Andre Chalot, resides in my home State of Florida. Mr. Chalot, a retired postal worker living in Bradenton, FL, was born in Le Havre, France, on December 19, 1919. He immigrated to the United States with his parents in 1921. After being graduated from high school in 1939, he sought to enlist in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Because he was considered too young to fly in the corps he moved to Canada, joined the Royal Canadian Air Force [RCAF], and received his pilot wings. He flew Spitfires with the RCAF based in England from 1940 to 1943. While still in England, Mr. Chalot transferred to the U.S. Army Corps, 358th fighter Squadron, and received a commission as second lieutenant. At the time of his commission in 1943, Mr. Chalot had completed the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen. Unfortunately, our Government misplaced Mr. Chalot's naturalization forms somewhere in the process. Early in 1944, while flying a routine P-51 mission over Germany, Mr. Chalot's plane was fired upon and hit, causing him to crash-land in Holland. With the help of the Resistance, Mr. Chalot managed to get to Paris, but in July 1944, he was betrayed by Gestapo agents and confined at Fresnes Prison. In August 1944, Germans crowded Mr. Chalot and 168 Allied airmen into boxcars and transported them to Buchenwald concentration camp. There they were confined in miserable, degrading, and inhumane conditions, forced to subsist on a starvation diet, and subjected to Nazi medical experiments. In November 1944, Mr. Chalot and most of his fellow airmen were transferred from Buchenwald to Luftstalag III, an infamous subcamp of Buchenwald, where they remained until their liberation at the end of the war. After the war, Mr. Chalot returned to the United States, and was finally naturalized as a U.S. citizen on September 18, 1945. On September 20, 1996, he applied to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission for compensation pursuant to the Agreement Between the United States and Germany Concerning Final Benefits To Certain United States Nationals Who Were Victims of National Socialist Measures of Persecution. On September 5, 1997, the Commission denied Mr. Chalot's claim on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen during his time as a Nazi prisoner of war and was, therefore, ineligible for compensation. H.R. 2731 would modify the date Mr. Chalot became a U.S. citizen and make him eligible for compensation under the Agreement Between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America. The other bill, H.R. 2732, provides relief for Mr. Roy Desmond Moser, a Massachusetts resident with an almost identical situation. This legislation would make Mr. Chalot and Mr. Moser eligible for compensation by deeming them to be naturalized U.S. citizens as of the dates they began their military service. Mr. President, I believe that these two bills provide relief for two courageous men who fought for our Nation during World War II. I hope my colleagues understand the personal significance of these measures for these two individuals.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record those documents which I referred to during my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of introducing legislation which has been necessitated by a relatively arcane provision in the Social Security Act. That provision, Mr. President, is section 1903(d)3 which states that ``the pro-rata share to which the United States is equitably entitled'' as determined by the secretary--this would be the Secretary of HHS--``of the net amount recovered during any quarter by a State or any political subdivision thereof with respect to medical assistance furnished under the State plan shall be considered an overpayment to be adjusted under this subsection.'' Under that provision, Mr. President, the Health Care Financing Administration has sent a letter to the States stating that they will now be responsible for providing to the Federal Government through an offset against their otherwise entitled funds under Medicaid, the health financing program for the poor, that portion of any recovery that they have made under a tobacco settlement that would be attributable to the Federal Government's share of previous payments for those Medicaid beneficiaries who had been deemed to have suffered a disease or illness related to tobacco. The letter states, Mr. President, that ``under current law,'' the law that I have just read, ``tobacco settlement recoveries must be treated like any other Medicaid recoveries.'' Mr. President, this is a situation which cries out for congressional attention. In the past, that section that I read had been interpreted to apply to those cases where there had been a billing error, where some Medicaid provider had overstated their reimbursement, the State had taken action to reduce that request for payment and had received funds from the provider that had been inappropriately paid in a previous account. This will be the first time that this section of the law is being used to really go to policy questions, and that is, what is the Federal Government's share of these tobacco settlements which have been negotiated by the States? I believe that the reasons that Congress should take action on this are several. First, this is a policy issue and should not be settled at a bureaucratic level, applying a statute that was written to deal with much different, much less policy-oriented issues as the question of the State and Federal share of State-initiated tobacco settlements. I will read, Mr. President, from a letter dated November 7 to the President and signed by nine of our Nation's Governors in which they state: The issue of control of the settlement funds will be difficult to resolve, and clearly a discussion of the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars demands congressional involvement. Unfortunately, it appears that the Health Care Financing Administration is not prepared to wait for Congress to act. Then the letter goes on to recount the fact that on November 3 the Health Care Financing Administration contacted the State Medicaid directors to begin the process of collecting what it, the Health Care Financing Administration, perceives to be the Federal portion of settlement funds attributable to Medicaid. Second, the reality is that the Federal Government has known about these suits initiated by the States since their pendency. In the case of the State of Florida, that means approximately 4 years. But the Federal Government has been passive. It did not ask or respond to requests to be listed as a coplaintiff and therefore be actively involved in litigation. It has provided none of the financing of the litigation, which in some cases has amounted to tens of millions of dollars, and yet now after a successful recovery, it wants to insert itself through this provision, that was designed to deal with reimbursements of minor amounts, to collect major amounts under these tobacco settlements. Finally, the Federal Government is not restricted from initiating its own effort to collect what funds it thinks it is due from the tobacco settlements. If the Federal Government feels--whether it is Medicare; programs under CHAMPUS, the health care for military personnel and their dependents; the Veterans Administration; or any other program in which the Federal Government is paying all or a substantial portion of health care costs--if the Federal Government feels that it has a legitimate case for recovery, it ought to do the same thing that the States have done, and that is initiate direct action toward such a recovery. But it is unseemly for the Federal Government to now be coming in after the fact and trying to collect on the good efforts that the States have taken. I have met with representatives of the White House and will continue to meet to determine if it is felt that specific legislation might be required in order to give the Federal Government the potential to recover those funds that the national taxpayers have paid which they should not have paid because they were due to illnesses or disease occasioned by the use of tobacco. I suggest that the representatives of the White House look closely at State legislation such as that which was passed in Florida, upon which Florida's successful settlement was predicated. Mr. President, I will be sending to the desk legislation which will state that the provision that I cited and other provisions analogous to it shall not apply to any amount recovered or paid to a State as part of a settlement or judgment reached in litigation initiated or pursued by a State against one or more manufactures of tobacco products. This would clearly state that as a matter of congressional policy it was not our intention that that arcane accounting provision should be applied to a major policy issue such as the allocation of funds between the Federal Government and the States that were recovered as a result of State-initiated litigation against a tobacco company. Rather, that is an issue which should be resolved by the policymakers before the Federal Government; that is, the United States Congress, in appropriate consultation with the President. So, Mr. President, I send this legislation to the desk and ask for its immediate referral.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If the Senator is going to ask unanimous consent for that extension, I ask for a further extension of 10 minutes immediately following his extension for the purpose of introducing legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on Wednesday, November 5, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with unanimous support. I am hopeful that this important bill, introduced by Senator Jeffords, will ensure that the children of the world will not miss out on these extraordinary mammals. The Asian Elephant Conservation Act is constructed along the lines of the successful African Elephant Conservation Act. I have been heartened to learn that the African Elephant Act is producing positive results. I am hopeful that the Asian Elephant Conservation Act will likewise support research, conservation, anti-poaching education, and protection of the animals. I feel strongly, however, that no funds allocated by these Acts are spent to promote efforts to resume the ivory trade or to encourage trophy hunting. According to a 1996 nationwide poll, 84 percent of Americans support efforts to protect elephants, yet I have learned that some of the funds from the African Elephant Conservation Act have gone toward the promotion of elephant trophy hunting. There is ongoing debate about the success and appropriateness of US taxpayer dollars being used to support such activities, and I look forward to learning more about this troublesome issue in the coming months. For the time being, however, I wish to ask my colleagues for quick support and passage of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act. I am honored to be a co-sponsor of the bill, and look forward to finding more ways to protect and conserve endangered species, both in the United States and abroad.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to urge passage of a private bill that will honor a man that served this country with honor and bravery. This bill will allow Robert R. Ingram to receive the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk to his life above and beyond the call of duty. Robert R. Ingram served as Corpsman with Company C, First Battalion, Seventh Marines in Vietnam. On March 28, 1966, Corpsman Ingram accompanied Marine point platoon as it dispatched an outpost of a North Vietnam Aggressor battalion in Quang Ngai Province, Republic of Vietnam. They were sabotaged by the Vietnamese, and the platoon was decimated, suffering numerous casualties. Corpsman Ingram was himself injured four times during the attack while he administered first aid to other members of his platoon. Enduring the pain from his many injuries and disregarding his own life, Corpsman Ingram's selfless actions saved many U.S. soldiers that day. By his indomitable fighting spirit, daring initiative, and unfaltering dedication to duty, Corpsman Ingram clearly earned the Medal of Honor as a result of his actions. However, the Navy failed to process an award, and Corpsman Ingram received no official commendation for his actions. The men with whom he served that fateful day, and the men whose lives he saved, all feel that a commendation is due. However, there is no evidence of an award recommendation. Mr. President, it is time that Robert R. Ingram receives an honor that should have been bestowed upon him over thirty years ago. This bill calls for the time limitations in Section 6248 to be waived so that this action may be taken. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to urge passage of a private bill that will honor a man that served this country with honor and bravery. This bill will allow Robert R. Ingram to receive the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk to his life above and beyond the call of duty. Robert R. Ingram served as Corpsman with Company C, First Battalion, Seventh Marines in Vietnam. On March 28, 1966, Corpsman Ingram accompanied Marine point platoon as it dispatched an outpost of a North Vietnam Aggressor battalion in Quang Ngai Province, Republic of Vietnam. They were sabotaged by the Vietnamese, and the platoon was decimated, suffering numerous casualties. Corpsman Ingram was himself injured four times during the attack while he administered first aid to other members of his platoon. Enduring the pain from his many injuries and disregarding his own life, Corpsman Ingram's selfless actions saved many U.S. soldiers that day. By his indomitable fighting spirit, daring initiative, and unfaltering dedication to duty, Corpsman Ingram clearly earned the Medal of Honor as a result of his actions. However, the Navy failed to process an award, and Corpsman Ingram received no official commendation for his actions. The men with whom he served that fateful day, and the men whose lives he saved, all feel that a commendation is due. However, there is no evidence of an award recommendation. Mr. President, it is time that Robert R. Ingram receives an honor that should have been bestowed upon him over thirty years ago. This bill calls for the time limitations in Section 6248 to be waived so that this action may be taken. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of the passage of the legislation which will soon be before us which will authorize the President to enter into negotiations on behalf of this Nation as it relates to trade and trade-related matters. Mr. President, we refer to this legislation as fast track. As with a number of other policy issues here in Washington, I consider these words to be nondescript. They do not convey what it is we are being asked to vote upon. This legislation first establishes a framework within which the President of the United States can conduct negotiations. In essence, it is analogous to a board of directors of an organization telling its executive that it can negotiate a particular contract but stipulating what the conditions of that contract must be and what the limits of the negotiating authority are. When that negotiation reaches a conclusion, and if that conclusion is a trade agreement, when that agreement is returned to the Congress where the Congress has a single ``yes'' or ``no'' vote but cannot modify the agreement, and in the case of the Senate surrender some of the prerogatives relative to extension of debate and other procedural advantages which are normally available to us as individual Members of the Senate, the question is, why will the Congress today be willing to do this? Why have Congresses over the past two or three decades been willing to pass such legislation and transfer a portion of their authority to the President? The answer is very simple. That is, if we do not do this, we don't have the opportunity to enter into trade negotiations because our trading partners will not come to the table. Why would countries like Great Britain, France, Argentina, and Japan not want to come to negotiate with the United States unless the President had this authority? Most of those countries have some form of a parliamentary form of government in which the executive branch and the legislative branch are effectively merged. Therefore, when the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom, as an example, he or she is not only speaking as the head of the executive branch but speaking as the head of the legislative branch and as the head of the political coalition which controls the Government. So what the Prime Minister says at the negotiating table there is the political capability and expectation of his or her ability to deliver on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom. In the case of the United States, we don't have this integration of the executive and the legislative branch, and frequently the President is not the head of a coalition that effectively controls Government. We have one of those examples today in which the President is of one political party, the leadership of the Congress is of another. So our trading partners would say, why should I sit down with the President to negotiate the best agreement that I can? And, like all agreements, trade agreements contain a heavy component of compromise. You gain some benefits in area A, and you give some benefits in area B in order to reach an agreement that both sides will feel is advantageous. Our trading partners would say, why would we agree to such a treaty knowing that then Congress is going to come back, and in area B where we got our principal benefits they will try to offer a series of amendments to strip us of those benefits? So the product that would finally emerge would not be one that both sides would feel is balanced and that can be supported. So, the reason that we have this process is because without it we never get to the question of whether we would have a negotiated agreement because the other parties would not sit with us to enter into that discussion. So, this is fundamentally a question of does the United States wish to negotiate trade agreements, or do we wish to sit in the stands while the other nations of the world negotiate trade agreements that will have an impact upon us? I know that this debate is heavily affected by history. Much of that history is a result of the North American Free-Trade Agreement and negative experiences that people have had under the North American Free-Trade Agreement. I come from a State that has felt that sting of the North American Free-Trade Agreement, particularly as it relates to agriculture. Our congressional delegation was very concerned about this in the days leading up to the final vote on the North American Free-Trade Agreement. We secured what we thought were some protective understandings from the administration. And I am sad to say that through a combination of inadequate enforcement and a failure to keep commitments we were very disappointed, and many sectors of our agricultural industry were adversely affected. Learning from this lesson--not what some have learned, which is we should wash our hands of this process and have nothing more to do with attempting to negotiate trade agreements, or to be involved when other people are negotiating trade agreements--the lesson that I and others have learned is this time we are going to put these concerns into writing in the legislation which sets the parameters for the negotiation and not depend upon promises of what will happen after the negotiation has been concluded. So, in this fast-track legislation as passed by the Senate Finance Committee there are a number of provisions that are intended to provide that enhanced level of confidence that agreements reached will be agreements enforced, that commitments made will be commitments realized. Let me just quote from page 8 of the Finance Committee's version of this legislation beginning on line 6: Agriculture: The principal negotiating objectives of the United States with respect to agriculture are in addition to those set forth in various sections of the Food Security Act of 1985 to achieve on an expedited basis to the maximum extent feasible more open and fair conditions of trade in agricultural commodities by . . . And then a series of specific points are mentioned. Let me refer to three of those specific points. Specific requirements for negotiators to account for the unique problems of perishable agricultural products, including disciplines on restrictive or trade distorting import and export practices; Two: Requirements to address market access for the United States agricultural products, including removing unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions; Three: Protection against unfair trade practices, including State subsidies, dumping, and export targeting practices. All of those, Mr. President, and more are listed in the fast-track legislation that is before us. In addition to that, in the report language submitted by the Senate Finance Committee, there is a requirement for the President to account for foreign unfair or trade distorting practices for specific sectors, particularly perishable agricultural products, citrus fruit, and fruit juices. So, we have learned some of the lessons of the recent past and are now applying those lessons in terms of the parameters of the negotiation in this fast-track agreement. Why do we need to be there in the first place? We had this experience in the recent past. Why not just step back, defend our position in America, and let the rest of the world take its place? I believe, Mr. President, that we are facing a stark choice; that is, a choice as to whether the United States is to maintain its leadership position in the world, to be at the table writing the rules of international trade so that those rules will take into consideration our circumstances, our expectations, and our economic interests. Or, are we to retreat from the world, and allow others to write the rules to their advantage? Mr. President, we represent only 4 percent of the customers of the world. Ninety-six percent of the people on this planet are not residents of the United States of America. We cannot maintain our growing economy and its standard of living unless we reach out to that 96 percent of our fellow human beings who do not live in our country. We cannot maintain our current record level of economic growth and expansion and prosperity and full employment without active trade. The United States has already opened its borders to foreign goods. We have recognized the benefit to our people of having access to goods and services that are produced outside the United States. We have done so most dramatically by reducing our tariffs to an average level of 2 percent. That is the average level of tariff on products coming into the United States. But our products going out of the United States trying to reach that 96 percent of mankind who are not U.S. residents face tariffs that exceed 10 percent on average. As an example, the country which is specifically mentioned in this legislation as being authorized for the President to negotiate membership in the North American Free-Trade Agreement is Chile. In February of last year, I visited Santiago. We learned from the United States-Chilean Chamber of Commerce that the average tariff against United States products in Chile is 11 percent. The average United States tariff against Chilean products is the 2 percent, which is the worldwide average. In a discussion with several businesses, some of which are United States, some of which are non-United States, as to what would be the effect of the United States entering into an agreement which would reduce Chilean tariffs against United States products, the answer was universally that it would lead to a substantial increase in the Chilean purchase of United States products. As an example, one firm that was in the boat building and boat repair business said that they bought their sheet steel and their machine tools from Europe because at the current level of tariffs Europe was more economically competitive, but that with a lowering of Chilean tariffs against United States products, the opening of a free trade relationship between the United States and Chile, they would shift their purchases of those products to the United States to the substantial benefit of our country. Chile is a relatively small country, a population of about 15 million. It is about the same size as my State of Florida. But it is a country which has had a dynamic market-driven economic growth over recent years. It has had a powerful influence on other developing countries in South America, and in the world. Establishing this relationship with Chile would be a strong United States recognition of the progress that this country has made, and an encouragement for others to follow Chile's example. Unfortunately, Mr. President, most of the debate about fast track has in fact focused on our own hemisphere, and specifically on the expansion of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. That is certainly an important part of this fast-track authority, but it may be secondary in its importance to the U.S. economy to a series of important sectoral negotiations which are going to commence under the GATT agreement to which we have already agreed. Under the GATT agreement beginning in the next few years, there will be a series of negotiations on specific economic sectors. I would like to focus on one of those sectors which will be the topic of negotiations in 1999. And that is agriculture. This is important to us because agriculture represents the area of trade in which the United States has the greatest surplus with the world. The largest area in which the United States has an advantage in terms of export over import is in agricultural products. What are we going to be trying to accomplish at the 1999 agricultural sectoral negotiations? Some of the objectives of the United States will include reducing foreign tariffs in consultation with the U.S. agricultural industry on fruits and vegetables. Today, for example, Japan imposes a tariff on oranges which is as high as 40 percent. Other countries have similarly high tariffs on citrus products and other processed fruits and vegetables. One of our principal negotiating objectives will be to drive down those barriers to U.S. agricultural products in important markets. Another objective will be to increase or eliminate tariff rate quotas. These are the limits on the amount of goods that the United States can export to a country before it faces high and often preventive levels of tariffs. We want to see those quota limits as high as possible or totally eliminated. This is another important objective of our negotiations. Mr. President, our distinguished chairman has asked to have the floor returned to him, and I shall do so by just summarizing to say that two other important agricultural objectives are to eliminate export subsidies and to eliminate state trading enterprises which have both distorted the agricultural market. If we do not pass this legislation, the United States will not be at the table in 1999. We will not have the opportunity to advance our goals. There are risks involved in extending to this President the same authority that we have granted to Presidents over the last two decades, but I believe the greater risk for the United States is to stand on the sidelines and let others write the rules that will determine our economic well-being. I believe the United States needs to be there. We need to be there with a sense of strength, pride, and confidence in our ability to negotiate an agreement. And if the President is found to have acted in a foolish way that is contrary to U.S. interests, we have the responsibility and the power to reject that agreement with a decisive ``no'' vote. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership which our chairman has given on this matter. I know what a strong supporter he has been on the issues. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the draft of an amendment which I intend to offer, assuming that we move to proceed to this matter, which relates to increased enforcement responsibility for the executive branch relative to any treaties that it might negotiate.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, with that, I again express my appreciation to our chairman for his leadership and urge our colleagues to follow that leadership by supporting this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I submit the following clarification to the fiscal year 1998 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill on behalf of myself and Senator Mack. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The clarification follows: Mack-Graham Statement Concerning Title VII of the Fiscal Year 1998 Interior Appropriations Bill Title VII of the FY'98 Interior Appropriations Bill approves and implements a settlement between the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the Florida Department of Transportation. It should be understood that the lawsuit referred to in section 702(2) and elsewhere has already been dismissed. However, since the lawsuit formed the underlaying basis of the dispute and could be revived absent this settlement, the settlement and this legislation refers to the lawsuit and settles all claims based on the underlying facts of the lawsuit. It should also be understood that the concurrence of the Board of Trustees of the International Improvements Trust Fund referred to in section 702(7)(B)(ii) relates only to the transfer of land to which the Board holds title. Insofar as the settlement provides for such land transfers wherein the Board has certain responsibilities, the Board concurs. The Board has taken no position with respect to other parts of the settlement regarding which the Board has no responsibility and which are instead within the authority and responsibility of the Florida Department of Transportation, which has executed the settlement.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am here to speak on two of the specific projects that are covered by this veto and now the proposal to override that veto, and then, second, I will make some remarks based on my own personal experience as to how the relationships between the legislative and the executive branches should function when the Executive has the line-item veto. First, let me turn to two projects with which I have extensive familiarity. First, a pier improvement project at the Mayport Naval Station near Jacksonville, FL. Mayport has been designated by the Navy to be the second Atlantic coast major naval facility, the first being Norfolk. In order to carry out this role, it has been determined by the Navy that it is necessary to make certain improvements to the piers that serve Mayport Naval Station. The improvements were included in the 5-year Navy plan. The Navy made another decision, and that was to utilize a design- build process as the means for constructing these pier improvements. In contrast to a traditional procedure in which a project is fully designed and then contractors bid on those completed designs, design- build merges the creative and the execution stages which one firm is responsible for submitting a bid to both design a project that will meet the needs of the client, in this case the Navy, and then to construct that project. It also has the benefits that the project can be segmented, so that if there are portions of the project that can proceed ahead on a more rapid pace because they are less complex or have less design requirements, they can be doing so. The result of this design-build process for the Navy has been both a significant savings in time and cost. A recent study by the Design-Build Institute of America states that over the last 4 years, naval facilities utilizing this design-build process have led to a timesaving of 15 percent over the conventional method of first design, then bid, then build, and a cost savings of 12 percent. That design-build process was determined to be appropriate to this pier improvement at Mayport. The significance of that, Mr. President, is that it runs in conflict with one of the criteria that the President used in determining which projects to veto, because one of those criteria was, was this project one which had been designed and, therefore, construction could commence in this fiscal year? In the case of a design-build project, you don't have a separate sequence of design. The design and the construction project are issued as one. In the case of Mayport, the Navy expectation is that they will issue their design-build contract in March of 1998. At this point, some of the real benefits of design-build begin to take effect. As an example, the toe wall of these particular piers will use a similar design to the toe wall of piers that are immediately adjacent, and, therefore, the expectation is that they will use the same designs which have already been done, therefore allowing the construction work on the toe wall to commence in June of 1998. Another important component of this pier improvement is to add a new electrical circuit so that the ships which have higher electrical demand today, because of all of their computerization and other electronics, will be adequately served. This electrical work represents a fifth circuit to the already existing four circuits. And so, again, no significant new design work will be required. It is expected that the electrical construction work will also commence in June of 1998. So the facts of this case are that, if the purpose of that standard, which was, is the design complete so construction can start? has been met, the only difference is because this is a design-build contract as opposed to a traditional contract, you can't answer the question, is there a completed set of designs here ready to be bid upon? It is ironic that the design-build process was specifically recognized and applauded in the reinvention-of-Government study that was done in 1993 as the wave of the future as to how the Federal Government should go about much of its construction activity. So, Mr. President, with that background on Mayport, I believe this clearly is one of those projects where the facts do not substantiate the reasoning that was given as the basis of the veto. We have an important project meeting a clear national defense need which the Navy has stated should be completed within the 5-year plan. The Navy has selected a design-build process which will result in construction commencing on important elements of this pier improvement in June of 1998. The second item which is of concern to me relates to Whiting Field, a major Navy aviation training center in Santa Rosa County, FL. Whiting Field is the centerpiece of actually a series of fields of runways and other training facilities that are located throughout northwest Florida and south Alabama. The Air Force and the Navy have decided on an eminently reasonable new joint project, and that is, that rather than having the basic training of naval aviators being done exclusively by the Navy and Air Force aviators being done exclusively by the Air Force, that they will develop joint training at the primary and advanced levels. Whiting Field has been designated as the field upon which approximately half of the primary training for both Air Force and Navy pilots will occur. A new aircraft has been selected, called JPATS, which will serve the needs of both the Navy and the Air Force. This new aircraft has some different requirements than the aircraft which the Navy has used for many years at Whiting Field. One of those is a slightly longer runway for safety purposes. It is a somewhat higher performance aircraft. In this legislation was $1.2 million to add to the length of one of the outlying fields which serves Whiting, which happens to be located in Brewton, AL. Also, as part of this $1.2 million, will be a safety zone built around one of these runways in order to enhance the safety for aviators with this new higher performance JPATS aircraft. Again, this is in the Navy's 5-year plan. The JPATS aircraft are going to be delivered in the year 2000. The work to be done is not high-tech, it is the extension of an existing runway, and, therefore, the development of complicated designs is not relevant to the project to be performed. Therefore, again, the rationale for the veto, which was that unless design had been conducted, assumedly construction could not start in the fiscal year and, therefore, the project became a candidate and, in fact, a victim of the President's veto. Just as the project at Mayport, this meets all the tests. In this case, the Navy and the Air Force have agreed that this is a needed project to secure an important new joint relationship between our two principal aviation services which will result in significant savings to the Nation and, hopefully, enhancements in the quality of training and the jointness of training of the Air Force and the Navy. I had the opportunity to visit Whiting Field in August of this year, and I can state from personal experience and discussions with the leadership of this important naval facility that there is great commitment to seeing that this joint training is a success and a contribution to the Nation's security. All this is going to have a key date of the year 2000 when the new aircraft begin to be delivered. So, Mr. President, I urge that these and the other projects that are contained in the legislation to override the President's veto be supported, because I believe they are the kind of projects which the Nation will need for its long-term national security. I commend the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and the Military Construction Subcommittee for their careful attention to these two projects. If I can take a brief period to comment about the line-item veto process. I was Governor of the State of Florida for 8 years with the line-item veto authority, and I utilized that authority where I thought appropriate. I believe that the most significant use of the line-item veto is in its deterrence effect. The fact that legislators who might be inclined to submit and seek passage of a project that did not have the positive qualities of Mayport and Whiting Field would be inclined to do so but for the fact that they knew the Executive could identify them as being inappropriate and, therefore, subject that sponsoring legislator to the public scrutiny of having advanced such a proposal. But I believe for that deterrence to be effective, there are some requirements on the side of the executive branch which were not met in this first test of the line-item veto at the Federal level. Two of those requirements are, first, no surprises. Neither of these projects are new to the Navy, to the Air Force, to the Office of Management and Budget, to the White House. These projects represent the completion of important previously determined military priorities: Mayport as the second naval port on the Atlantic coast; joint training of Air Force and naval aviators. Therefore, as these two projects moved through the appropriations process, there were plenty of opportunities, if it was felt that they were going to be subject to veto, to have sent up such a signal. No such signal was sent. The assumption was, since they had the support of the Department of Defense, and they were within the 5-year plan, that they were projects that had a time urgency, that they were appropriate. In the future, I would urge whoever is the Executive authority to be engaged in this process at a much earlier stage to indicate if there are some problems and what the nature of those concerns will be. As the chairman has indicated, apparently even he did not know what the criteria were to be for these projects until after the Congress had passed the final bill and sent it to the White House for its consideration. And the second is that after the bill has gone to the White House, and they are looking at these items, if they see an item that they believe is a candidate for veto, they owe it to themselves, they owe it to the sponsoring individuals and agencies, and they owe it to the national objectives which are sought to be achieved to have a frank discussion with the parties who are most knowledgeable so that they can get the facts. I made an effort on both of these projects to educate who I thought were the appropriate people. Obviously, my attempt at education was not successful. But I am confident that had there been a full opportunity to review the facts that I have briefly submitted here this afternoon, that the White House would have made a different decision relative to these two projects. So I think, second, that the White House needs to have the practice to bring into the process before the final decision those who are most knowledgeable so that never again will it have to issue statements that: ``I'm sorry I did this. And I did it out of ignorance.'' Ignorance declared is a sign of a person who is ready to enter into confession and redemption, but this process is too important to have very many confessions and redemptions. We ought to try to be operating based on facts and knowledge and the importance to the national security of these significant defense items. So, Mr. President, with those comments on these two specific projects, and a little unsolicited advice to the White House, I urge a strong Senate vote in favor of this proposal. I hope that our colleagues in the House will follow suit and the President will see the wisdom of the line-item veto process in its full extension of a dynamic relationship between two equal branches of the U.S. Government. Thank you. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I, too, thank Senator Gorton for his support to include this provision in the final bill. Do I correctly understand that title VII of the Interior appropriations bill will ratify the settlement agreement signed by the State of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe in 1996?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support as an original sponsor of legislation to restore the tax exemption for the Teacher's Insurance Annuity Association and College Retirement Equities Fund's (TIAA-CREF) pension business. Hidden in the depths of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a provision was included to strip TIAA-CREF of its original tax status. Repealing TIAA-CREF's tax exemption, which extended back almost 80 years, clearly conflicted with other provisions in the bill that recognize the need to encourage both education and retirement savings. TIAA-CREF supports nearly 2 million participants and over 6,000 educational and research institutions and has historically served as a model of pension portability and coverage. In the teaching profession, pension portability is particularly vital. To the benefit of students, policy makers and the general public, pension portability under TIAA-CREF allows professors and educators to share their expertise at multiple institutions without losing their retirement security. TIAA-CREF's market share is limited by its charter to colleges, universities, independent schools and other non-profit educational and research organizations. In July, during debate on the Taxpayer Relief Act, 43 of my colleagues in the Senate joined me in sending a letter to tax negotiators urging them to reject this direct assault against America's educators. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the months ahead to restore TIAA-CREF's original tax status.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the meritorious efforts of Edward Villella, founder of the Miami City Ballet, in the global dance community. Mr. Villella's interest in dance began when he joined the School of American Ballet, where he now serves on the board of directors, at the age of 10. Early in his career, Edward Villella was the first American male to perform with the Royal Danish Ballet and was the only American asked to dance an encore at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. Villella has honored America with his contributions to dance and his dedication to teaching dance to others. He danced for President John Kennedy's inaugural and in 1975 captured an Emmy for his television production of ``Harlequin.'' Recently, he was 1 of the 11 recipients of the National Medal of Arts and was inducted into the Florida Artists Hall of Fame this year, the most prestigious cultural honor that can be bestowed upon an individual in Florida. Edward Villella has honored his State by being awarded a distinguished Kennedy Center Honor for lifetime achievement. Mr. President, on behalf of Floridians everywhere, I applaud Edward Villella for his success. It is my earnest hope that his outstanding contributions to our State will continue to inspire us for years to come.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution, together with my friend and colleague Senator Lugar, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should give high priority to working with our partners in the Americas to address shared foreign policy and security problems in the Western Hemisphere. Over the past several years we have witnessed unprecedented progress in our hemisphere. This sweeping wave of democratization and free market economics now provides us with a unique opportunity to consolidate these gains and to create a new security regime in the Americas. This new regime must be based upon the premise that we will work with our neighbors as equal partners to address security-related matters of mutual concern. On August 1, 1997, the President revised the unilateral policy prohibiting the sale or transfer of advanced weapons systems to countries of South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, and restored the policy based on a case-by-case analysis comparable to that used in other regions of the world. This alone is not a security policy. It is an action that must be wrapped in a broader security policy for the region. This resolution urges the President to work towards such a broader policy and provides some direction for that policy. We must recognize the great progress that the democratically elected civilian governments of the region have made. For this they deserve to be treated as we treat our other democratic friends and allies. At the same time, we must work with them to find ways to enhance security through defense cooperation, transparency, and confidence and security building measures. We urge the President to emphasize these themes in his meetings with our hemisphere partners. Mr. President, I urge all of our colleagues to join Senator Lugar and myself in supporting this resolution. It will provide the President with the support of the Congress as he pursues these objectives, and demonstrate to our partners that we remain committed to building a secure environment so that all nations of the hemisphere can prosper in peace.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I stand before you to highlight an injustice which has been done to the men and women who have served this country with selfless dedication. They have devoted themselves to the mission of protecting our country while promoting peace and democracy around the world. For this contribution to our country, we reward their performance with a retirement package which includes health care. Unfortunately, through a series of independent laws, we have created a disjointed health care benefits package which treats retirees differently depending on their age and where they happen to live. I am introducing a bill to correct this disjointed health care policy. There is clearly a double standard affecting our veterans. Under the current provisions of the law, military retirees are eligible to receive health care under the CHAMPUS program until they become 65 years old. After that time, their health care is provided by Medicare. Under the CHAMPUS program, retirees have access to a program known as the mail-order pharmacy program which allows military members and retirees to obtain prescription drugs through the mail. Retirees over the age of 65 years old cannot be supported through the CHAMPUS program under current legislative restrictions. Medicare has no such pharmacy benefit. This means that once retirees become 65 years old, they lose the benefit and convenience of a mail-order pharmacy program. This comes at a time in their lives when they are more likely to need prescription drugs. I commend the Department of Defense on their initiative to develop the mail-order pharmacy program. This new program was established to provide better service to the military community and to enable them to maximize that level of service within their decreasing available resources. Military retirees and their dependents are eligible to receive free medical care from military installations on a space available basis. However, as the military continues to downsize their medical corps, ``space available'' is becoming more and more elusive for retirees. Pharmacy services are likewise available to retirees at military installations on a space available basis. For those retirees who were receiving their medical care, including prescription services, from a military installation which was closed by Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] decisions, we have made an exception to the law which allows these retirees to participate in the mail-order pharmacy program. We have created a conglomeration of rules which apply to military retirees depending on their personal circumstances. My proposal is very simple. All military retirees, including their dependents, should have access to the same health care benefits. We should not differentiate between medical benefits based only on a retiree's age or where a retiree happens to live. All retirees should be allowed to use the mail-order pharmacy program. The General Accounting Office estimates that this proposal will cost approximately $229 million. While I remain committed to reducing the budget deficit and maintaining a balanced budget, I feel that the current legislation has created an inequity in the retirement benefits provided to our military personnel which must be corrected. It is the right thing to do. This Nation owes a debt of gratitude to our military retirees. They have endured many hardships during their careers, including separation from their families for extended periods of time and frequent moves to all corners of the globe. They have also risked their lives in the name of freedom and democracy. Military retirees have given tirelessly of themselves throughout their careers, and this proposal is an opportunity to correct an unjust situation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as more and more Americans live to be 100, thanks to advances in health and longevity, I am honored to offer a tribute to a distinguished centurion from Florida: Mr. Fred Hooper of Ocala, FL. Mr. Hooper, who celebrates his 100th birthday on October 6, 1997, is a builder, an educator, and an inspiration to all those who have aspired to the triumph of victory in sports competition. Fred Hooper has a special place in the history of horse racing because he won the Kentucky Derby in 1945 with his first horse, ``Hoop Jr.'', bought in 1943. Since then, he has bred and raced more than 100 stakes winners. For decades, Mr. Hooper has been an instrumental force in thoroughbred racing. Through his promotion of horse racing, he has supported and strengthened Florida tourism and agriculture; two industries which are important components of Florida's economy. As he approaches the special milestone of his 100th birthday, Mr. Hooper continues to rise early in the morning to oversee the training of his top thoroughbreds and the cutting and baling of his hay in the fields at his farm. I recently visited this living legend at his home in Ocala. As he recalled his accomplishments and his ties that extend throughout America, I was inspired by a man who has lived a full life and has impacted so many people and events. He told me of his first horse, ``Hoop Jr.'', and his working relationship with Eddie Arcaro, one of the all-time greatest jockeys. Together they achieved racing history with their victory at the 1945 Kentucky Derby. This Hooper-Arcaro combination advanced the Florida racing industry to national prominence, while making Fred Hooper a legend in Florida and the racing world. I also learned that Mr. Hooper's activities have not been limited to racing. The Hooper Construction Company built roads, bridges, airports, dams and buildings in Florida and the Southeast. It has been said that if all the roads built by Mr. Hooper's company were linked together, the combined total would stretch for four lanes from Miami to Houston. Education is another Fred Hooper hallmark. During the 1970's, he contributed to the building of a private school in Alabama, on the former site of his construction company. And, he is rightfully proud of his support--and the generosity of the thoroughbred industry--for the veterinary school at the University of Florida. Part of the joy of this birthday is sharing the celebration with family. Mr. Hooper is the proud father of 4 children, 13 grandchildren and 9 great-grandchildren. The celebration of his centennial birthday on October 6, 1997, will be another achievement in the rich and rewarding life of Fred Hooper. I ask my colleagues to join me, the community of Ocala, the Hooper family and all those who love horse racing in congratulating Fred Hooper and extending to him best wishes into the next century.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join my colleague Senator D'Amato as we introduce legislation to increase the amount of low income housing tax credits allocated to the States and to index the low-income housing credit for inflation. In a time of fiscal austerity, housing credits encourage private investment in economically sound, privately owned, affordable homes for low-income working families in all 50 States. By helping families that get up and go to work every day to earn their rent and mortgage payments, the low-income housing credit provides families with an important stake in maintaining self-sufficiency. Mr. President, the low-income housing tax credit was created in the 1986 tax reform bill in the wake of decreasing appropriations for federally- assisted housing and the elimination of other tax incentives for rental housing production. The housing credit encourages the construction and renovation of low-income housing by reducing the tax liability placed on the developers of affordable homes. The credit is based on the costs of development as well as the percentage of units devoted to low-income families or individuals. The current formula used in determining a State's housing credit allocation is $1.25 multiplied by the State's population. Unlike other provisions in the Tax Code, this formula has not been adjusted since the credit was created in 1986. During the same period, inflation has eroded the credit's purchasing power by nearly 45 percent, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The bipartisan bill Senator D'Amato and I introduce today proposes to increase the annual limitation on State authority to allocate low income housing tax credits to $1.75 per capita and index the cap for inflation. By freeing the 10-year-old cap on housing credits from its current limitation, as requested by the Nation's Governors, our bill will liberate States' capacity to help millions of Americans who still have no decent, safe, affordable place to live. A brief look at the history of the housing credit provides ample evidence of why our legislation is needed. In the State of Florida, for example, the LIHTC has used more than $187 million in tax credits to produce approximately 42,000 affordable, rental units, valued at over $2.2 billion. Tax credit dollars are leveraged at an average of $18 to $1. Nevertheless, in 1996, nationwide demand for the housing credit greatly out paced supply by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. In Florida, credits are distributed based upon a competitive application process and many worthwhile projects are denied due to a lack of tax credit authority. This spring, the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], Congress' main investigative agency, released a national audit of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. The GAO found that the average housing credit apartment renter earns only 37 percent of the local area median income. Further, surveyed properties--more than 450--appeared to be in good condition and well-maintained. Additionally, the GAO reported that housing credit properties ``overwhelmingly comply with statutory and regulatory requirements.'' Mr. President, I'd like to draw attention to one example of how the low-income housing tax credit has benefited American families. I am referring to the Holly Cove housing community developed by Vestcor Equities near Jacksonville, FL. Vestcor provides clean, safe and affordable living environments for low- to moderate-income residents by developing, renovating, and operating multifamily communities. In addition to affordable housing, Vestcor, through developments such as Holly Cove provides community services to improve the quality of life of their residents. Through counseling, education, and resident involvement, Vestcor energizes its community and provides residents with the tools they need for success. Activities and educational programs offered include: budgeting and credit counseling, resume writing assistance, GED classes, substance abuse counseling, and after school homework assistance. In short, with the help of the low-income housing tax credit, Vestcor Equities strengthens the community by investing in children and families. Vestcor Equities provides first-hand evidence of the important role the low-income housing tax credit offers as a catalyst of private sector investment in our communities. Mr. President, as we struggle to balance the budget and restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, the housing credit allows bureaucrats to step aside and let the free market fill an important need in America's communities. I hope my colleagues will embrace this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I join my colleague Senator D'Amato as we introduce legislation to increase the amount of low income housing tax credits allocated to the States and to index the low-income housing credit for inflation. In a time of fiscal austerity, housing credits encourage private investment in economically sound, privately owned, affordable homes for low-income working families in all 50 States. By helping families that get up and go to work every day to earn their rent and mortgage payments, the low-income housing credit provides families with an important stake in maintaining self-sufficiency. Mr. President, the low-income housing tax credit was created in the 1986 tax reform bill in the wake of decreasing appropriations for federally- assisted housing and the elimination of other tax incentives for rental housing production. The housing credit encourages the construction and renovation of low-income housing by reducing the tax liability placed on the developers of affordable homes. The credit is based on the costs of development as well as the percentage of units devoted to low-income families or individuals. The current formula used in determining a State's housing credit allocation is $1.25 multiplied by the State's population. Unlike other provisions in the Tax Code, this formula has not been adjusted since the credit was created in 1986. During the same period, inflation has eroded the credit's purchasing power by nearly 45 percent, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The bipartisan bill Senator D'Amato and I introduce today proposes to increase the annual limitation on State authority to allocate low income housing tax credits to $1.75 per capita and index the cap for inflation. By freeing the 10-year-old cap on housing credits from its current limitation, as requested by the Nation's Governors, our bill will liberate States' capacity to help millions of Americans who still have no decent, safe, affordable place to live. A brief look at the history of the housing credit provides ample evidence of why our legislation is needed. In the State of Florida, for example, the LIHTC has used more than $187 million in tax credits to produce approximately 42,000 affordable, rental units, valued at over $2.2 billion. Tax credit dollars are leveraged at an average of $18 to $1. Nevertheless, in 1996, nationwide demand for the housing credit greatly out paced supply by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. In Florida, credits are distributed based upon a competitive application process and many worthwhile projects are denied due to a lack of tax credit authority. This spring, the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], Congress' main investigative agency, released a national audit of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. The GAO found that the average housing credit apartment renter earns only 37 percent of the local area median income. Further, surveyed properties--more than 450--appeared to be in good condition and well-maintained. Additionally, the GAO reported that housing credit properties ``overwhelmingly comply with statutory and regulatory requirements.'' Mr. President, I'd like to draw attention to one example of how the low-income housing tax credit has benefited American families. I am referring to the Holly Cove housing community developed by Vestcor Equities near Jacksonville, FL. Vestcor provides clean, safe and affordable living environments for low- to moderate-income residents by developing, renovating, and operating multifamily communities. In addition to affordable housing, Vestcor, through developments such as Holly Cove provides community services to improve the quality of life of their residents. Through counseling, education, and resident involvement, Vestcor energizes its community and provides residents with the tools they need for success. Activities and educational programs offered include: budgeting and credit counseling, resume writing assistance, GED classes, substance abuse counseling, and after school homework assistance. In short, with the help of the low-income housing tax credit, Vestcor Equities strengthens the community by investing in children and families. Vestcor Equities provides first-hand evidence of the important role the low-income housing tax credit offers as a catalyst of private sector investment in our communities. Mr. President, as we struggle to balance the budget and restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, the housing credit allows bureaucrats to step aside and let the free market fill an important need in America's communities. I hope my colleagues will embrace this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an extremely important and urgent bill, because the continuation of the 1996 law, with what I will describe as its inadvertent retroactive application to this class of people, is causing great distress and unnecessary instability in communities that are principally affected. As those who participated in the press conference earlier today underscored, this is a group of people who came here largely at our request. They came here because communism had taken over their country. They came here because the Soviet Union was establishing a satellite state in our own hemisphere. They came here in order to participate in those ultimately successful efforts to establish a democratic government in Nicaragua. Now for us to change the rules from those that were in place at the time we extended that invitation, to have the practical effect of denying these people even the opportunity to be heard on their request for a permanent residence in the United States, is outrageous and inconsistent with basic American principles. I underscore what Senator Mack and I have said throughout this debate. This is not an amnesty provision. By the passage of this legislation, no one automatically has their status in the United States altered. What they do have is the right to use the rules that were in effect when they came to this country to apply for permanent legal status in the United States. I think that is just fair and consistent with the relationships that we want to establish with, particularly, our neighbors in this hemisphere. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague for having asked for this tabling motion which, obviously, is not a motion in which he is going to urge success, but it is our means of getting an expression of opinion by the U.S. Senate on this fundamental issue. I urge defeat of the motion to table and then a quick adoption of this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize a program that for the past 40 years has served over 30,000 troubled boys, girls, and their families. This program has assisted these troubled youth by providing an opportunity to learn to resolve conflicts and learn proper values as they work toward a lawful, productive, and secure future. I speak specifically of the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches, which have been in continuous operation since October 2, 1957. The first of these ranches was established on the banks of Florida's historic Suwannee River under the direction of the Florida Sheriffs Association. For four decades, this ranch and the many others established in its wake have provided a home for neglected, troubled, and abused boys and girls. They offer in-home counseling and parent effectiveness training to hundreds of families throughout Florida each year. The programs for youth include residential care, camping, foster care, adoption, after- care, and individual and family counseling. Through these youth ranches, the Florida Sheriffs Association and our State's individual sheriffs, deputies, and office staffs have made a vital contribution in the fight against juvenile delinquency and the breakdown of the American family. Mr. President, the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches are a shining example of law enforcement working with communities to help troubled youth and their families. I offer my sincerest congratulations and thanks for their four decades of service to the people of Florida, and wish all of the individuals involved the best of luck for the next 40 years and beyond.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to record my comments regarding the conference report on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. This legislation will help fund national functions, such as law enforcement and delivery of the mail. The law-enforcement provisions include an important anticrime initiative for Florida, which is strongly supported by public-safety officials. The anticrime provision would fund the establishment of a high intensity drug trafficking area in central Florida. I have worked closely with colleagues Senator Connie Mack and Congressman John Mica of Florida to include this measure in the conference report. In an effort to fight crime and to support law enforcement, I voted for the conference report for the appropriations for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998. This conference report also contains a provision to adjust congressional pay for cost of living. When the Senate considered its version of this appropriations bill, the legislation did not include a pay adjustment for Members of Congress. The record reflects that I support the Senate version of this legislation that was submitted to a House-Senate conference. If I had the opportunity to vote on the proposed adjustment as a separate, stand-alone measure, I would have voted ``no.''