Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that a statement by the President, which was released on July 25 of this year, at the time the administration supported the principles of the Immigration Reform Transition Act of 1997, also be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that after almost a week we are on the verge of having an expression of the Senate on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer also be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this month the people of Florida join with faculty, staff, students, and more than 70,000 alumni in honoring Florida International University on its 25th anniversary. For the past quarter century, this outstanding institution's commitment to academic excellence and its constant celebration of diversity has enriched communities throughout Florida, the United States, and the entire world. This milestone anniversary is particularly special to members of the Graham family. In 1943, State senator Ernest R. Graham--my father-- introduced legislation to establish a public university in south Florida. Twenty-two years later, on May 26, 1965, the Florida State senate unanimously passed legislation to fulfill his vision. On September 19, 1972, Florida International University opened its doors for the first time. That would have been a proud day for my father. When I was growing up in the Miami area, he used to tell my brothers, sister, and I that the best investment he ever made were his Dade County school taxes. He was proud, even enthusiastic, about paying those taxes because they enabled his children to get a strong education in the Dade County public school system. If he were alive today, my father would agree that the time and energy he put into laying the groundwork for a Florida International University was yet another wise educational investment. After only a quarter-century in existence, FIU has already gained acclaim as one of the most academically challenging and culturally diverse universities in the entire United States. This distinction is a credit to Florida International University's hard-working staff, dedicated faculty, bright student body, loyal alumni, and especially the wise, dynamic leadership of FIU's four presidents--Charles Perry, Harold Crosby, Gregory Wolfe, and Modesto Maidique. Each of these four outstanding individuals have contributed to Florida International University's popularity, prestige, and reputation. When Charles Perry took the reins of FIU in 1969, a full 3 years before the university opened, the campus was a run-down airport tower, old empty hangars, and 342 acres of land in west Dade County. His boundless energy and zeal for establishing an outstanding public university in south Florida led to the largest opening day enrollment of any university in American history. On September 19, 1972, nearly 6,000 students started classes at Florida International University. Presidents Harold Crosby and Gregory Wolfe continued the outstanding work that president Perry had begun. President Crosby placed special emphasis on fulfilling the international vision espoused by FIU's founders, hiring faculty members from a number of foreign countries and establishing the multilingual, multicultural center. President Wolfe led Florida International through its critical transition from 2- to 4- year university. For the last 10 years, Florida International University has had the good fortune to be guided by a dedicated, hard-working leader with an eye for excellence, a passion for education, a keen insight into bringing town and gown together in support of academic success, and a determination to make FIU second to none in preparing students for the United States' future in an increasingly international economy and society. It might have been destiny that brought President Modesto ``Mitch'' Maidique to Florida International University. He has helped to mold FIU in his own image--president Maidique's own background contains the same ethnic and cultural diversity, financial savvy, and academic excellence that have come to characterize south Florida's preeminent public university. The son of German-Czech emigrants who settled in Cuba during the early 1800's, president Maidique was born in Havana in 1940. At the end of his formal education, he had earned three degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--bachelor of science, master of science, doctor of electrical engineering--and another from the business program at MIT's Cambridge neighbor, Harvard University. By the time he assumed Florida International University's presidency in 1986, he had added professor and distinguished businessman to his resume, teaching at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Stanford and lending his scientific knowledge and business know-how to several prominent firms. Success followed president Maidique to Florida International. His decade of leadership has spurred a number of impressive academic, financial, and cultural achievements. In academics, U.S. News & World Report consistently ranks Florida International University as one of the top 150 national universities in the United States. Money magazine says that it is among America's best public commuter universities. Perhaps Florida International University's greatest academic achievement is the fact that it so earnestly works to provide an outstanding education to all students, regardless of socioeconomic background. Thanks in part to low tuition rates, and to the work ethic and frugality of FIU administrators, faculty, and staff, its students are the fifth least indebted in the Nation. U.S. News & World Report rates it as one of the 10 best educational buys in the United States. Finally, Florida International University is one of the most diverse colleges in the United States that is increasingly benefited by its ethnic diversity. For the last 25 years, it has been training young adults to live, work, and succeed in a world that speaks multiple languages and celebrates a variety of cultural achievements. More than half of its student body is Hispanic, and the university produces more Hispanic graduates than any other university in America. All in all, it has 70,000 alumni that represent all 50 States and more than 146 countries. Mr. President, I join with all Floridians in congratulating president Modesto Maidique and every past and present member of the Florida International University community on its historic 25th anniversary. As the university prepares to begin its next quarter-century, its abiding commitment to academic excellence, affordability, and diversity is leading the United States into the 21st century.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very proud to support my friend and colleague, Senator Mack, in our efforts to include the Immigration Reform and Transition Act, as modified, in this current legislation. It is important that we take this step today, or as soon thereafter as possible. There are thousands of families who are currently in a legal limbo because of the retroactive changes that were made in the immigration laws that were passed in 1996. Senator Mack, Senator Kennedy, and others have worked to develop a bipartisan, humane solution to give these families the opportunity to remain together--and I underscore the word ``opportunity''--and to continue the lives that they have built in hundreds of our local communities in the United States. I can tell you from personal knowledge and experience and relationships, that the people to whom this amendment is primarily directed are, in the overwhelming number, hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding individuals who have followed every rule and regulation since they have been resident in the United States and are making a contribution to the development of our country. Since the 1996 retroactive immigration bill passed, with the consequences that Senator Mack has just outlined, these families have lived in fear, fear of being uprooted and torn apart, and fear that all of their hard work in the United States will be for naught. We now have the chance to act and ease these fears. The thousands of people we are seeking justice for have human faces. They are not just statistics, they are not just theories in an Immigration Act. I want to submit for the Record, stories that mention the human dimension of this important amendment. Also, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, editorials in support of the actions we are urging today.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am working today to offer fairness and justice for a woman who lives in Miami. She is 86 years old. She and her family came to America, encouraged by the U.S. Government to do so in 1984. Without this amendment, she faces almost certain deportation back to Nicaragua. With this amendment she has the chance, the opportunity to apply to be considered on her own individual merits, based on her length of residence in the United States and her contributions since she has been in this country, to stay in the United States on a permanent, secure basis. I also speak on behalf of an 18-year-old student at Coral Park High School in Miami. This student's parents fled Nicaragua when he was 7 years old. His family was allowed to stay under the old law, and now he may be forced back to a country with which he has almost no connection. These two examples, an elderly lady and a young man, are examples of the people to whom we are attempting to apply fundamental fairness, to give them the opportunity to apply on their own merits, on their own records in this country, for a legal, permanent status. These families have been in our Nation since the early 1980's, since our Government encouraged them to flee Communist oppression and civil unrest in Central America. Speaking specifically to those who have come from Nicaragua, they fled a nation which had been taken over by a Communist regime, which was supported by the then-Soviet Union. In one of the last of those cold war confrontations in a third country, between the Soviet Union and the United States, the United States encouraged those Nicaraguans to leave, to come and to participate in the effort, which was finally successful, to restore democratic government to Nicaragua. Mr. President, 15 years after they came at our request, they own their own homes, they have U.S. citizen children, they have opened up small businesses, they have become flourishing entrepreneurs. Now we have changed the rules and threaten to divide families. This massive upheaval would be detrimental, not only to the individuals affected, but also to Central American nations that would be forced to absorb thousands of new residents. This action, taken in 1996, if not modified by this amendment which Senator Mack, Senator Kennedy, and I are proposing today, would have adverse effects on U.S. interests in this important region. It would have a destabilizing effect today. It would have an even greater impact in the future, when, God forbid, we were ever in another situation as we were in Nicaragua in the early 1980's. How could the United States with any credibility call out to the people of that country to resist the actions of governments which were antithetical to U.S. interests? I believe the honor of the United States of America is at stake in this amendment that we offer today. I emphasize, as Senator Mack has so effectively done, that this is not an amnesty program. We are not stating that all of these people who meet the standards covered by this amendment will become permanent residents, or have any other legal status in the United States. What we are saying is that under the rules that applied at the time they came into this country, at our invitation, they will have the right to apply. They will have the right to apply to receive permanent residence. It will then be their obligation to meet the standards to justify a permanent status in the United States. That is fundamental American fairness. By adopting this amendment and by recommitting ourselves to that standard of fairness and justice, we will be sending a strong message, that we will support the foreign policy objectives that led to our call in the first instance. We will be sending a strong message that the United States of America believes in playing by the rules and not changing those rules in midlife. These families deserve that message of fairness. They deserve it now. They fled persecution and communism to seek a safe haven in our country. They assisted our country in restoring democracy to their country. We must not abandon them now. Mr. President, I yield back my time to my colleague, Senator Mack, and also to Senator Abraham, for further comments on this issue. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk----

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield for a parliamentary inquiry but retaining the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, my purpose, with my colleague, is solely to introduce an amendment which we will then ask to be set aside for consideration on Tuesday. We will be, I think, less than 90 seconds in completing this task. So I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of offering this amendment in hopes that we complete this task, and then we will relinquish the floor.

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we would like to engage our dear friend, Senator Gorton, in a colloquy. He has once again drafted a difficult bill this year and has balanced difficult priorities. Within the energy conservation section of the bill, the committee has provided $500,000 more than in fiscal year 1997 for electrochromic research within the building equipment and materials section. We would hope that it is the expectation of the chairman that this $500,000 increase will be used to further the development of Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition [PECVD] techniques for electrochromic technology.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I join my colleague from Florida in thanking the chairman for his hard work on behalf of the Everglades. As my friend from Washington is aware, the Federal Government--under an agreement enshrined in the Everglades Forever Act of the State of Florida--is committed to purchase land for Stormwater Treatment Area 1--East. This land will be used to create a buffer marsh bordering on the Everglades agricultural area to help restore water quality. As I understand it, nothing in the bill before us today prevents the Secretary from using a portion of the Everglades National Park land acquisition funding to assist in STA-1E land acquisitions. Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the chairman's comments and assistance.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join my good friend and colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Warner, in discussing the legislation that was introduced or will be introduced today, and was presented yesterday, the Intermodal Transportation Act. Mr. President, I will discuss some of the substantive provisions of this which have caused me to give it enthusiastic support, but I would like to comment in a preliminary manner about the way in which this legislation was developed. In a sense, this legislation has been in the course of development since we adopted the current Highway Transportation Act in 1991. It has been a course of development both by those who had high expectations and those such as myself who had apprehensions about the 1991 enactment and have been monitoring it closely to see what lessons we might learn from that experience to apply to now the next 6-year reauthorization of this important national legislation. This close scrutiny has particularly drawn the attention of those who have responsibility for the management of our highway systems at the State and local level, and it is appropriate that it should have that close scrutiny. Most of the responsibility for the construction, the management, the operation of our highway and bridge system is at the State and local level. Those officials represent a unique source of insight and wisdom as to what our national policy should be, and those resources of wisdom and insight have been applied in the development of the legislation that today is being introduced. I will also comment about the bipartisan spirit in which this has been developed. Senator Warner spoke about the many months in which we worked together in attempting to develop some principles that would be sound for America and would represent a fair and balanced program for each of the States of America. The fact that we are at the point of introducing this legislation, with almost every region of the country, almost every difference in the country from States that are mature, States that are rapidly growing, States that have peculiar climactic considerations that impact their highway system, large States, small States, States from every corner of the geography of America, Members of the U.S. Senate representing those States have now come together behind this legislation. That is in the best spirit of a democracy, seeking consensus behind a plan which will then have the confidence and support of the American people. I want to particularly commend Senator Warner, Senator Baucus, and Senator Chafee for their leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee for taking all the principle, ideas, and suggestions and now putting them in the form of this legislation with strong bipartisan support. Let me talk briefly, Mr. President, about some of the reasons I am supporting this legislation. First, I am doing it as a strong supporter of a balanced budget. It would be easy to have a highway bill which would satisfy everyone's needs if there was an unlimited amount of money to be spent in that area of national responsibility. The fact is, there is not an unlimited amount of money to be spent in that area or in any other of our national responsibilities. We have committed ourselves to a policy of fiscal prudence, and to balance the Nation's budget by the year 2002. It would be the height of irresponsibility, within less than 2 months of having congratulated ourselves on having passed a balanced budget agreement, to then bust that agreement by presenting a highway bill which was substantially beyond the limits that had been prescribed in the balanced budget as our Nation's allocation for highway and bridge construction. I am pleased that this legislation complies with the balanced budget agreement. Second, I am pleased that this legislation will bring fundamental fairness and integrity to the allocation of our national resources for surface transportation among the 50 States and among the communities of America. We have had a system in the past which has utilized a number of factors that were increasingly irrelevant and frequently outdated in terms of their ability to determine relative need among the States in terms of highway and bridge construction. As an example, the current legislation that we are using in 1997 has the factor of census--where are the American people--and one of the considerations as to where the American people's transportation dollars should be allocated among the 50 States in order to best meet national needs. The difficulty is that the census that is used in that formula is the 1980 census, 17 years out of date. For a rapidly growing State like mine, that is a punishing provision. For some States, where the population has been stable or even declining over that 17-year period, it creates an unwarranted bonus. One of the principles of this bill in terms of fairness is that a key central indicator of highway need is the amount of highway transactions collected within that State for Federal purposes. All motorists across this land pay the same number of pennies per gallon of motor fuel purchased for Federal highway purposes. Therefore, there is a relationship between how much individual States collect for that Federal highway motor fuel tax and what the relative demand on the system is. People buy gasoline and other motor fuels because they will drive their vehicles. They tend to drive the vehicles relatively close to the point of purchase of that motor fuel. So, assessing how much tax is collected is a very strong indicator of where the need for the transportation services resides. So this bill essentially says that 90 cents of every dollar will be returned to the State at the point of collection. If a particular State collects $100 million a year of Federal motor fuel tax, it can be assured it will get back at least $90 million to meet the needs that were generated by those persons who purchased their motor fuel and paid that Federal tax. This is a very significant departure from our previous surface transportation acts. To put this in the context of my State of Florida, a large, fast- growing State, since 1991 we have averaged receiving not 90 cents, but less than 78 cents per year of our Federal motor fuels tax. That has resulted in an average per year return to our State of $768 million. When this legislation goes into effect for the next 6 years at a somewhat higher annual level of return, because as the country grows and as the economy expands more motor fuel is purchased, therefore, more taxes are paid, but primarily because we will be moving from 78 cents to 90 cents of every dollar returned, our State is projected for the next 6 years to receive an average of $1 billion a year in Federal highway funds. That will allow my fast-growing State and its 15 million residents to be able to much better meet the needs of maintaining the system that is in existence and expanding the system in order to meet the demands of a growing population and an expanding economy. Third, Mr. President, this legislation balances national needs and State and local needs. Some would argue, and I think with considerable persuasion, that what we ought to do is to have the National Government substantially back away from a Federal highway program, repeal substantial amounts of the Federal motor fuel tax and let the States make a determination as to whether they want to pick up that tax and levy it now as a State tax and use those funds directly for State purposes. Frankly, moving toward the 90 cents on the dollar program to assure fundamental fairness is a major step toward that type of a turnback philosophy. But this legislation continues to recognize that there is an important national role in transportation. If I want to drive my car from Miami Lakes, FL, to the home State of our Presiding Officer, I have to drive through many States. It is, therefore, important to me that each one of those States has a safe and efficient highway system to allow me to achieve my destination of mobility from one part of America to another. That is a national need for which we all have an interest and a responsibility. I believe that this legislation balances those two desires to place as much responsibility and freedom of action and determination of priorities at the State and local level out of a belief that it is there that there is the best ability to assess what the real needs are, while still maintaining a sufficient national role to assure that we have national mobility across this great continent. I believe that the legislation that we introduce today strikes that appropriate balance. A fourth aspect of this legislation is simplification and streamlining. As Senator Warner discussed, this legislation will reduce the number of categories in which the Federal Government provides highway and bridge funds to the States and local communities. It will make it easier for the public, easier for people in our communities and States, easier for us here in the Congress to understand the system, because it will be more simplified. We will get greater efficiency out of the funds derived. There should be lessened administrative costs because there will be fewer programs to maintain and monitor. Increasing the ability of people in our communities and in our States to make their transportation decisions should be and is a key priority of this legislation. Mr. President, I close by discussing a final point, which is a point at which I suggest that we need to be totally candid with the American people. I voted against ISTEA in 1991 and stated that one of my reasons for voting against it was the fact that in all probability, at the end of the 6-year period of that legislation, our roads and bridges would be in worse shape than they were in 1991. I am sad to report that the U.S. Department of Transportation has issued reports which indicate that my prophecy was correct, that we had lower levels of maintenance on our highways, we have more bridges in need of serious repair, we have not maintained sufficient capacity in order to meet the needs of a growing economy and a growing American population. I regret to say that I am afraid the same prophecy can be made about the legislation that we are about to pass, and that is a serious commentary. It speaks to the level of our commitment to transportation as an important national priority. Transportation is not being singled out. We are doing an inadequate job in almost every area of our Nation's infrastructure. One of those areas in which I am particularly concerned is educational infrastructure. All over the country we see older schools crumbling because of lack of adequate maintenance and repair and rehabilitation. All over the country, we see children going to classrooms that don't have the kind of access to modern technology that an education at the end of the 20th century requires. We see students in portables and inappropriate educational facilities because there have not been the resources to keep pace with building the new classrooms that the expanding student populations require. So what we are encountering in our transportation system is replicated in our education system, also in water and sewer and other basic community health services. I hope that, as part of this debate on transportation in 1997, we will use this as a means of stimulating a national awareness to the fact that we have a much greater job to do in terms of building the basic systems upon which our people, our society, our free enterprise economic system depend. Having said that, there is a glimmer of hope in this legislation relative to the total adequacy of funds for transportation. While recognizing that the traditional means of funding transportation--so much money from the National Government through a Federal program, supplemented by additional funds from State or local sources--while those traditional sources are not likely to be adequate in order to maintain our current system and meet the needs for expansion, this legislation does call for some new opportunities for creativity and innovation and encouraging nontraditional funding to come into transportation--particularly, funding from the private sector. We started several years ago with a plan that encouraged States to set up State banks to engage in various forms of innovative financing-- public-private partnerships, encouragement to early acquisition of highway corridors in order to lower the cost of right-of-way acquisition--a whole series of innovative ideas at the State level, with Federal support, in order to stretch our available dollars further so that we have a better chance of meeting the total demands that would be made upon transportation as one important part of our infrastructure obligations. This legislation builds on those past provisions. It expands the States' ability to set up those State-based infrastructure banks. It also will create a new Federal innovative financing program to work with the States where they have projects that will benefit by these kinds of new means of financing transportation and involving the private sector. I think that is going to be an absolute key if we are going to meet our obligation to future generations in terms of maintaining a transportation system that will give us the economic capabilities to sustain our global position as well as provide the mobility that the American people require for their own day-to-day life experiences. So, Mr. President, I am enthusiastic about the legislation that we are introducing today. I believe it represents a significant step forward in terms of accepting our national responsibility and doing it in a fair and balanced manner. I applaud those who have joined in this effort and look forward to this Senate passing this legislation at the earliest possible date so that before we recess for 1997, we can say as one of our accomplishments for this year that we have passed a significant national transportation policy and have that policy in place for the next 6 years, and we can get on with the business of benefiting by that new policy.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join my good friend and colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Warner, in discussing the legislation that was introduced or will be introduced today, and was presented yesterday, the Intermodal Transportation Act. Mr. President, I will discuss some of the substantive provisions of this which have caused me to give it enthusiastic support, but I would like to comment in a preliminary manner about the way in which this legislation was developed. In a sense, this legislation has been in the course of development since we adopted the current Highway Transportation Act in 1991. It has been a course of development both by those who had high expectations and those such as myself who had apprehensions about the 1991 enactment and have been monitoring it closely to see what lessons we might learn from that experience to apply to now the next 6-year reauthorization of this important national legislation. This close scrutiny has particularly drawn the attention of those who have responsibility for the management of our highway systems at the State and local level, and it is appropriate that it should have that close scrutiny. Most of the responsibility for the construction, the management, the operation of our highway and bridge system is at the State and local level. Those officials represent a unique source of insight and wisdom as to what our national policy should be, and those resources of wisdom and insight have been applied in the development of the legislation that today is being introduced. I will also comment about the bipartisan spirit in which this has been developed. Senator Warner spoke about the many months in which we worked together in attempting to develop some principles that would be sound for America and would represent a fair and balanced program for each of the States of America. The fact that we are at the point of introducing this legislation, with almost every region of the country, almost every difference in the country from States that are mature, States that are rapidly growing, States that have peculiar climactic considerations that impact their highway system, large States, small States, States from every corner of the geography of America, Members of the U.S. Senate representing those States have now come together behind this legislation. That is in the best spirit of a democracy, seeking consensus behind a plan which will then have the confidence and support of the American people. I want to particularly commend Senator Warner, Senator Baucus, and Senator Chafee for their leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee for taking all the principle, ideas, and suggestions and now putting them in the form of this legislation with strong bipartisan support. Let me talk briefly, Mr. President, about some of the reasons I am supporting this legislation. First, I am doing it as a strong supporter of a balanced budget. It would be easy to have a highway bill which would satisfy everyone's needs if there was an unlimited amount of money to be spent in that area of national responsibility. The fact is, there is not an unlimited amount of money to be spent in that area or in any other of our national responsibilities. We have committed ourselves to a policy of fiscal prudence, and to balance the Nation's budget by the year 2002. It would be the height of irresponsibility, within less than 2 months of having congratulated ourselves on having passed a balanced budget agreement, to then bust that agreement by presenting a highway bill which was substantially beyond the limits that had been prescribed in the balanced budget as our Nation's allocation for highway and bridge construction. I am pleased that this legislation complies with the balanced budget agreement. Second, I am pleased that this legislation will bring fundamental fairness and integrity to the allocation of our national resources for surface transportation among the 50 States and among the communities of America. We have had a system in the past which has utilized a number of factors that were increasingly irrelevant and frequently outdated in terms of their ability to determine relative need among the States in terms of highway and bridge construction. As an example, the current legislation that we are using in 1997 has the factor of census--where are the American people--and one of the considerations as to where the American people's transportation dollars should be allocated among the 50 States in order to best meet national needs. The difficulty is that the census that is used in that formula is the 1980 census, 17 years out of date. For a rapidly growing State like mine, that is a punishing provision. For some States, where the population has been stable or even declining over that 17-year period, it creates an unwarranted bonus. One of the principles of this bill in terms of fairness is that a key central indicator of highway need is the amount of highway transactions collected within that State for Federal purposes. All motorists across this land pay the same number of pennies per gallon of motor fuel purchased for Federal highway purposes. Therefore, there is a relationship between how much individual States collect for that Federal highway motor fuel tax and what the relative demand on the system is. People buy gasoline and other motor fuels because they will drive their vehicles. They tend to drive the vehicles relatively close to the point of purchase of that motor fuel. So, assessing how much tax is collected is a very strong indicator of where the need for the transportation services resides. So this bill essentially says that 90 cents of every dollar will be returned to the State at the point of collection. If a particular State collects $100 million a year of Federal motor fuel tax, it can be assured it will get back at least $90 million to meet the needs that were generated by those persons who purchased their motor fuel and paid that Federal tax. This is a very significant departure from our previous surface transportation acts. To put this in the context of my State of Florida, a large, fast- growing State, since 1991 we have averaged receiving not 90 cents, but less than 78 cents per year of our Federal motor fuels tax. That has resulted in an average per year return to our State of $768 million. When this legislation goes into effect for the next 6 years at a somewhat higher annual level of return, because as the country grows and as the economy expands more motor fuel is purchased, therefore, more taxes are paid, but primarily because we will be moving from 78 cents to 90 cents of every dollar returned, our State is projected for the next 6 years to receive an average of $1 billion a year in Federal highway funds. That will allow my fast-growing State and its 15 million residents to be able to much better meet the needs of maintaining the system that is in existence and expanding the system in order to meet the demands of a growing population and an expanding economy. Third, Mr. President, this legislation balances national needs and State and local needs. Some would argue, and I think with considerable persuasion, that what we ought to do is to have the National Government substantially back away from a Federal highway program, repeal substantial amounts of the Federal motor fuel tax and let the States make a determination as to whether they want to pick up that tax and levy it now as a State tax and use those funds directly for State purposes. Frankly, moving toward the 90 cents on the dollar program to assure fundamental fairness is a major step toward that type of a turnback philosophy. But this legislation continues to recognize that there is an important national role in transportation. If I want to drive my car from Miami Lakes, FL, to the home State of our Presiding Officer, I have to drive through many States. It is, therefore, important to me that each one of those States has a safe and efficient highway system to allow me to achieve my destination of mobility from one part of America to another. That is a national need for which we all have an interest and a responsibility. I believe that this legislation balances those two desires to place as much responsibility and freedom of action and determination of priorities at the State and local level out of a belief that it is there that there is the best ability to assess what the real needs are, while still maintaining a sufficient national role to assure that we have national mobility across this great continent. I believe that the legislation that we introduce today strikes that appropriate balance. A fourth aspect of this legislation is simplification and streamlining. As Senator Warner discussed, this legislation will reduce the number of categories in which the Federal Government provides highway and bridge funds to the States and local communities. It will make it easier for the public, easier for people in our communities and States, easier for us here in the Congress to understand the system, because it will be more simplified. We will get greater efficiency out of the funds derived. There should be lessened administrative costs because there will be fewer programs to maintain and monitor. Increasing the ability of people in our communities and in our States to make their transportation decisions should be and is a key priority of this legislation. Mr. President, I close by discussing a final point, which is a point at which I suggest that we need to be totally candid with the American people. I voted against ISTEA in 1991 and stated that one of my reasons for voting against it was the fact that in all probability, at the end of the 6-year period of that legislation, our roads and bridges would be in worse shape than they were in 1991. I am sad to report that the U.S. Department of Transportation has issued reports which indicate that my prophecy was correct, that we had lower levels of maintenance on our highways, we have more bridges in need of serious repair, we have not maintained sufficient capacity in order to meet the needs of a growing economy and a growing American population. I regret to say that I am afraid the same prophecy can be made about the legislation that we are about to pass, and that is a serious commentary. It speaks to the level of our commitment to transportation as an important national priority. Transportation is not being singled out. We are doing an inadequate job in almost every area of our Nation's infrastructure. One of those areas in which I am particularly concerned is educational infrastructure. All over the country we see older schools crumbling because of lack of adequate maintenance and repair and rehabilitation. All over the country, we see children going to classrooms that don't have the kind of access to modern technology that an education at the end of the 20th century requires. We see students in portables and inappropriate educational facilities because there have not been the resources to keep pace with building the new classrooms that the expanding student populations require. So what we are encountering in our transportation system is replicated in our education system, also in water and sewer and other basic community health services. I hope that, as part of this debate on transportation in 1997, we will use this as a means of stimulating a national awareness to the fact that we have a much greater job to do in terms of building the basic systems upon which our people, our society, our free enterprise economic system depend. Having said that, there is a glimmer of hope in this legislation relative to the total adequacy of funds for transportation. While recognizing that the traditional means of funding transportation--so much money from the National Government through a Federal program, supplemented by additional funds from State or local sources--while those traditional sources are not likely to be adequate in order to maintain our current system and meet the needs for expansion, this legislation does call for some new opportunities for creativity and innovation and encouraging nontraditional funding to come into transportation--particularly, funding from the private sector. We started several years ago with a plan that encouraged States to set up State banks to engage in various forms of innovative financing-- public-private partnerships, encouragement to early acquisition of highway corridors in order to lower the cost of right-of-way acquisition--a whole series of innovative ideas at the State level, with Federal support, in order to stretch our available dollars further so that we have a better chance of meeting the total demands that would be made upon transportation as one important part of our infrastructure obligations. This legislation builds on those past provisions. It expands the States' ability to set up those State-based infrastructure banks. It also will create a new Federal innovative financing program to work with the States where they have projects that will benefit by these kinds of new means of financing transportation and involving the private sector. I think that is going to be an absolute key if we are going to meet our obligation to future generations in terms of maintaining a transportation system that will give us the economic capabilities to sustain our global position as well as provide the mobility that the American people require for their own day-to-day life experiences. So, Mr. President, I am enthusiastic about the legislation that we are introducing today. I believe it represents a significant step forward in terms of accepting our national responsibility and doing it in a fair and balanced manner. I applaud those who have joined in this effort and look forward to this Senate passing this legislation at the earliest possible date so that before we recess for 1997, we can say as one of our accomplishments for this year that we have passed a significant national transportation policy and have that policy in place for the next 6 years, and we can get on with the business of benefiting by that new policy.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this bill establishes wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, and environmental education as the priority public uses of the refuge system. We have found in the State of Florida that even wildlife observation can become incompatible if not carefully regulated and managed. For example, at Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge, visitors enjoy observing the manatees that this refuge was established to protect. The favored way of observing the animals is by swimming with them in the refuge waters. A few years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service discovered that so many people were engaging in this activity that many of the manatees were leaving the refuge that was designed for their protection. The agency determined that this form of wildlife observation was occurring at levels that were incompatible with the purpose of the refuge and had to establish certain limits on when and where people could engage in this activity and how many could do so at one time. Am I correct that even those so-called wildlife-dependent activities that are considered priority public uses in the bill must be found to be compatible with the purposes of the refuges and the mission of the system? And, that as a part of this determination, the Fish and Wildlife Service must consider whether there are adequate funds available to administer the use in a manner that is compatible?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, some have pointed out correctly that, in the case of unforeseen changes in circumstances, it may occasionally be necessary to adjust a use to ensure that it remains compatible. My understanding is that utility companies have been willing and able to make minor adjustments to their facilities to ensure that they remain compatible. Mr. Chairman, am I correct to understand that this amendment will still allow the flexibility to make such adjustments to facilities that have been authorized for more than 10 years in order to ensure that they remain compatible?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, the third part of our amendment concerns the issuance of permits for such uses as electric utility rights-of-way that may be of longer than 10 years in duration. The underlying bill requires that all non-wildlife-dependent uses be reevaluated every 10 years to ensure they are still compatible. The language of our amendment directs that for uses that are authorized for more than 10 years, such as utility right-of-way the Fish and Wildlife Service will evaluate compliance with the original terms and conditions of the permit and not the authorization of the right-of-way itself.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this bill--for the first time in law--would establish a definition for the term ``compatible.'' This is one of the single most important aspects of this legislation. Too often in the past, activities have been allowed on refuges that have harmed the fish and wildlife and habitats that these areas were designed to protect. There has been some concern that the definition used in the bill is overly vague. The bill defines a compatible use as one that will not ``materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of a refuge or the mission of the Refuge System.'' The House committee report on this bill further clarified that what this language means is that a use is compatible if it will not have a tangible adverse impact on refuge purposes. Is it also your understanding that this is what is meant by this definition?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. It is a long overdue organic act for our magnificent refuge system. In 1991 and again in 1993, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife, I introduced the National Wildlife Refuge System Management and Policy Act--legislation which was very similar to that which is before us today. My aims then were straightforward. First, to clarify that the purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to conserve our Nation's diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Second, to improve the process used to determine which public uses shall be allowed on the refuges. Third, to require the development of comprehensive conservation plans for each of the refuges and ensure that the public has ample opportunity to participate in the planning process as it does in planning for our national parks and national forests. Fourth, to lay out clear affirmative duties for the Secretary of the Interior to protect the integrity and plan for the appropriate expansion of the Refuge System. My bill had the strong support of conservation groups like the Wilderness Society, the National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Sierra Club. Thanks to Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, and Baucus, my bill also enjoyed the support of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies along with a variety of sportsmen's groups. The Environment and Public Works Committee reported that bill in the 103d Congress but unfortunately we were not able to bring the bill to the Senate floor because a number of procedural holds were placed on the bill. In the last Congress, the House introduced and passed a radically different bill that would have harmed our Refuge System. President Clinton indicated that he would veto the House bill but fortunately, it was not acted upon by the Senate. The bill before us today is not identical to the bill I introduced in prior years. It is not exactly how I would have drafted it, but I am very pleased that it addresses the four major areas that I outlined above: a mission statement for the system, a formal process to assess the compatibility of refuge activities, a planning requirement, and duties for the Interior Secretary. Of course, even with passage of this bill, the Refuge System will only meet its potential to conserve the Nation's fish and wildlife if the Congress appropriates the funds necessary for its proper management. I am pleased that the House has approved a healthy increase for this purpose in its fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill and will work to ensure that the Senate does as well. Senator Kempthorne and I and 18 of our colleagues have written to the Appropriations Committee to urge such funding. theodore roosevelt's endangered species act Ninety-four years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt established the first national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island in my State of Florida. This bold move protected the last remaining nesting colony of brown pelicans on the Atlantic seaboard. But as critical as this action was for the pelicans, it had much broader importance for the Nation's wildlife because it began our only system of national lands dedicated to wildlife conservation. Before leaving office, Roosevelt went on to establish more than 50 such sanctuaries. Herons, egrets, pelicans, and other shorebirds, along with all manner of waterfowl found sanctuary on Roosevelt's refuges. Large mammals including bison, elk, and antelope were also protected. In this sense, the refuge was Roosevelt's Endangered Species Act. Refuges continue to be created to meet the most pressing wildlife conservation challenges of the day. Refuges have been established for endangered fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, frogs, bats, and butterflies. In my State we even have the new Lake Wales Ridge Refuge established for endangered plants. And while we have many refuges to protect endangered species, we know that many other species would be headed for the endangered species list were it not for the protections afforded by the National Wildlife Refuge System. Today the Refuge System includes more than 500 refuges and 92 million acres which makes it larger than the National Parks System. Yet in the lower 48 States, the Refuge System amounts to less than 4 percent of the Federal public lands and less than 1 percent of the total land area of those States. In Florida we have 25 refuges encompassing more than 1 million acres of land and water. These include refuges to protect our manatees, Florida panthers, sea turtles, Key deer, crocodiles, and those endangered plants. public support and use of the Refuge System Our Refuge System has been strongly supported by bird watchers, hunters, and anglers throughout its history--even though there was very little recreation permitted for much of the system's history. For example, hunting was a rarity on refuges until 1949, but hunters and sportsmen's organizations were strong supporters of the system even in those early years because they realized that without protected habitats, there could be no wildlife. Today, the Refuge System provides ample opportunities for fish and wildlife related recreation including wildlife observation, nature photography, and hunting and fishing, as well as environmental education. But these public uses are clearly secondary to the long- standing primary purposes of the Refuge System to conserve fish and wildlife and habitats. S. 1059 continues this clear distinction between the purpose of the Refuge system to conserve fish and wildlife, and the priority uses of the system which are those related to learning about or enjoying fish and wildlife. problems in the system Unfortunately, public use has not always been carried out in a manner that is consistent with the well-being of our refuges and their wildlife. A 1989 study by the General Accounting Office found that secondary activities considered by refuge managers to be harmful to wildlife resources were occurring on nearly 60 percent on our refuges. Power boating, mining, military air exercises, off-road vehicles, and air boating were cited as the most frequent harmful uses. Oil and gas drilling, timbering, grazing, farming, commercial fishing, and even wildlife related recreation such as hunting, trapping, and wildlife observation in some instances were also found to harm wildlife or habitat. A 1991 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed the GAO's findings. The Service found that harmful activities were present at 63 percent of the refuges. At one time, for example, the Key West National Wildlife Refuge harbored the only known breeding colony of frigatebirds in the United States. The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, also in the Florida Keys, hosted numerous colonies of wading birds. But increased activity within the refuges by jet skiers, power boaters, water skiers, campers, and others was the most likely reason that the frigatebirds abandoned the refuge rookery and the chief culprit behind the fact that other birds have showed signs of declining breeding success. Refuge managers, despite their best efforts, have often been susceptible to outside pressure to allow these damaging activities because the laws governing the Refuge System are not completely clear. Furthermore, decisions about which activities were compatible with wildlife conservation purposes have often been made without adequate public input or written records. The problem had been compounded in past years by lack of periodic reevaluations of uses. action to restore integrity to the refuge system Fortunately, the Clinton administration has taken a number of steps to resolve many of the problems in the National Wildlife Refuge System. I like to believe that the interest and oversight that we provided in a bipartisan fashion in the 102d and 103d Congresses set the stage for these improvements. A number of harmful economic, recreational, and even military activities have been eliminated or appropriately reduced. In Florida, for example, action has been taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service to reduce the number of people allowed to scuba dive alongside manatees in the Crystal River refuge that was established to protect the manatee. Likewise, the Service has taken action to reduce public use at the Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge. And a back-country plan has been implemented in the Florida Keys to greatly reduce conflicts between people and wildlife. President Clinton has also issued an Executive order on the management of the Refuge System that specifies that the mission of the refuges is to preserve a national network of lands and waters to conserve our wildlife diversity. The Executive order also appropriately ensures that recreational pursuits that are related to fish and wildlife will take priority over other activities not so related. Now, as in the past, I am gratified to be part of the process of updating the laws that govern our magnificent National Wildlife Refuge System. It is my sincerest hope that this new law will improve the Refuge System for the benefit of our Nation's fish and wildlife and for generations of Americans to come.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as we send our children and grandchildren back to school to begin another academic year, we as a nation focus on the vital role of education. Florida is proud of its role in developing and nurturing colleges and universities of excellence that have educated generations of America's leaders. One of those institutions, Florida A&M University, has been cited as ``College of the Year'' by the editors of Time magazine and The Princeton Review. The editors cited the school's outstanding enrollment of National Achievement Scholars, its position as the only historically African- American college to offer four Ph.D programs, and dramatic enrollment growth. This well-deserved national recognition is a tribute to the students, alumni, and staff of Florida A&M University. It also reflects the outstanding leadership of President Frederick Humphries, who has led the institution with vision and dedication since 1985. When classes began this academic year, enrollment exceeded 10,000 students, up from 3,200 in the mid-eighties. Florida A&M University enrolled its largest freshman class ever this fall. Further, the number of bachelors' degrees awarded since 1991 has more than tripled, from 463 in 1991 to 1,524 last year, surpassing Howard University as America's leading granter of undergraduate degrees to African-American college graduates. During this decade, Florida A&M University, along with Harvard, has been a leader in attracting National Achievement Scholars. Florida A&M University led the Nation in 1992 and 1995; Harvard in 1993 and 1994. While all this was occurring--enrollment growth, more degrees awarded and more scholars enrolled--overall admission standards increased. In the past 10 years, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of Florida A&M University-bound students rose more than 200 points. Mr. President, I have been honored to visit Florida A&M University on many occasions. I have experienced the special spirit on campus, in the classrooms, and among the greater Florida A&M University family of alumni, faculty, administrators, and students. Our State and Nation are better because of Florida A&M University and its commitment to educational excellence. Congratulations, Rattlers. Mr. President, I ask that an editorial published in the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper on August 26, 1997, be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: Why FAMU's Top Achievements Rate National Press Vestiges of a past when men and women were judged by the color of their skin are still with us. And one of those monuments of intolerance ranks as one of Tallahassee's brighter stars, Florida A&M University. In an age where segregation is illegal, the natural question is, Why have two universities: one white, one black? But the reason for FAMU's existence is as strong today as it was when black people were driven from pillar to post and denied higher education. Time Magazine and the Princeton Review lauded FAMU as the premier producer of black graduates and for its work in establishing doctorate programs. he recruited students, lined up jobs Consider what wonders FAMU has performed with students in need of opportunity. Since 1991, the school tripled the size of its graduating classes. President Frederick Humphries' peripatetic efforts landed those graduates hundreds of jobs with major corporations, thus pumping into our mainstream new generations of black achievers able to earn their own way. His development of new doctoral programs opened new avenues of academic success, and his linkages with the federal government brought dollars and prestige to FAMU and to Tallahassee. We're still moving toward that day when we'll all be judged by the content of our character, not solely by the color of our skin. But until we get there, institutions such as FAMU are an integral and necessary part of the journey. In an age of voluntary segregation--when the rich and well- to-do take their tax dollars, culture and opportunities beyond the pale of our cities--hundreds of thousands of blacks and poor whites are left to founder in the race for jobs and college placement. For those students, the nurturing influence of institutions such as FAMU cannot be denied.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am honored to welcome Judge Alan Gold to the Federal bench in the Southern District of Florida. For more than 25 years, Alan Gold has served the State of Florida with honor and distinction. I have no doubt that his outstanding service will continue in his new assignment. On September 15, Judge Gold will be sworn in, along with Mr. Donald Middlebrooks, in ceremonies in Miami, FL. Much of my confidence in Judge Alan Gold comes from his lifelong commitment to the people of our State. He began his career more than 25 years ago, when he represented Dade County in both State and Federal courts. In 1975, Alan Gold moved into private practice, where he developed wide recognition and respect as a leader in land use and environmental law. In 1984, when I was Governor, I appointed Judge Gold to Florida's Land Management Study Committee, a vital post given our State's long period of rapid population growth. In addition, Judge Gold served Florida for 6 years as general counsel to the Florida High Speed Rail Transportation Commission, an entity created by the State legislature in 1984 to develop a high-speed rail transportation and magnetic levitation demonstration project. Mr. President, in addition to his substantial professional experience, Judge Gold will bring respected academic credentials to the Federal bench. In 1989, nearly 25 years after completing a masters in law at the University of Miami School of Law, Judge Gold was invited to join his alma mater's faculty as an adjunct professor. It was a wise invitation to an outstanding role model for future generations of legal professionals. As a result of his distinguished efforts in the public interest and in private practice, Alan Gold was appointed to Florida's Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, where he has served with integrity and competence. His peers and colleagues have overwhelmingly endorsed his abilities. In a 1994 survey of regional attorneys by the Dade County Bar, 92.8 percent of respondents rated Judge Gold's performance as qualified or exceptionally qualified. As a circuit court judge, Alan Gold served both in the family and criminal divisions, where he presided over felony jury cases. Despite the demands of a heavy caseload, Judge Gold continued his efforts to improve the legal system for Florida communities, families, and individuals. He was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court's Family Court Steering Committee and has recently chaired an effort to develop a model family court. During the confirmation process, Judge Gold's support transcended partisanship. In addition to the support from Senator Connie Mack and myself, he earned strong endorsements from U.S. Representatives Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Miami and E. Clay Shaw of Fort Lauderdale. Mr. President, Judge Alan Gold has long provided an example of academic diligence, legal acumen, judicial excellence, and determination to serve Floridians. I am pleased that he will join the Federal bench, and extend my congratulations to him, his family, and the Senate for its prompt review and confirmation of this worthy nominee.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to be working with Senators Kennedy, Abraham, and Harkin in their efforts to reauthorize the Refugee Act of 1980. Through the Office of the U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs, we are better able to develop a comprehensive national strategy to help our State and local governments assimilate the individuals that have fled persecution, injustice, and war. The Federal Government has welcomed these individuals to our shores. Our local governments welcome them to their communities--and through the programs of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, we make sure that they acquire the skills needed to adjust to our society and become self-sufficient, productive members of society, as soon as possible. More than 17,000 refugees and entrants arrived in Florida in fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1995, this number was higher than 36,000. Between 1992 and 1996, more than 70,000 refugees and entrants settled in Dade County. Without the programs of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, this influx would be a tremendous financial burden on State and local governments. The arrival of refugees and entrants is a Federal decision; these costs should not be shifted to State and local taxpayers. By reauthorizing the Refugee Act of 1980, we can continue to offer protection from those fleeing persecution--and make sure that we are addressing the needs of these vulnerable members of our society in a humane, just, comprehensive, and cost-effective manner. Senator Kennedy is to be commended on his leadership on this issue. I am proud to work with him and our Senate colleagues to ensure the passage of this measure.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it will be 35 years ago this coming Wednesday, August 6, 1997, that the people of Jamaica were granted their independence from Great Britain. This significant event for the people of Jamaica is cause for great celebration by the citizens of Jamaica as well as all of us who cherish democracy. The United States and Jamaica have been partners working together helping to bring democracy throughout the world. The government of Jamaica was the first of our allies joining our efforts to come to the aid of its neighbor Haiti. Jamaican American citizens contribute to the richness of our nation's cultural heritage. They strengthen the rich cultural and social ties between our nations. It is therefore fitting that we take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Jamaica during their four day ``Emancipation Day'' celebration August 1, to August 4, 1997.