Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am honored to join my colleague and friend Senator Connie Mack in introducing the Immigration Reform Transition Act of 1997. This is a bipartisan, humane solution to concerns that were raised by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Thousands of families, hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying individuals who had followed every rule and regulation up to the passage of the immigration bill last year now live in fear of deportation. Working together, and working swiftly, Congress has the opportunity to correct this injustice. The families that we are helping came to our Nation in the 1980's. Our own Government encouraged them to flee the Communist regimes and civil unrest of Central America at that time. Our Nation's foreign policy gave them a safe haven; our Immigration Service allowed for their work authorization and they settled in to our American society. Ten or fifteen years later, these families have homes here. They have U.S. citizen children. They have jobs; they pay taxes, and they make tremendous contributions to our local communities. The Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 severely restricted the avenues of relief that were traditionally available to aliens who have resided in the United States on a long- term basis. Then, on February 20 of this year, the Board of Immigration Appeals interpreted a section of the immigration bill as applying, in all essence, retroactively. Forty thousand Nicaraguans in Miami alone who, under the old law, would have qualified for suspension of deportation, would now be deportable because of Board's decision. Families would be torn apart. Close-knit communities would evaporate. Businesses would suffer. In my heart, I don't believe this was the intent of Congress when the immigration bill was passed last year. Janet Reno made an important step toward fairness and justice on July 11, when she agreed to review the Board of Immigration Appeal's decision. I supported her action, and appreciate her help in finding a humane and reasonable solution to these concerns. In her July 11 press release, the Attorney General informed Congress that legislative action would be necessary to fully resolve this specific issue. I am pleased to work with her, and my Senate colleagues, today to take the first step in accomplishing our legislative goal. This legislation is crafted very narrowly. It recognizes the special circumstances in which Nicaraguans, and other Central Americans, came to the United States during a specific period of time--when they were fleeing the unrest created by the Communist governments of the era. It allows this specific group of individuals and families to complete the process that they may have started 10 or 15 years ago--and importantly--to complete the process under the same set of rules that they started with. Critics may say that we are undoing the immigration bill of last year. We are not. The 4000-per-year cap on suspensions of deportation is still intact, we are just not applying it to this specific group of individuals. The stronger standards to qualify or suspension of deportation still remain current law. We are just allowing this group to go through the process without changing the rules in midstream. Also important: this is not an amnesty bill. Each request will be decided on a case by case basis. If someone has been of bad moral character, they will not qualify. If someone has not been here the required amount of time, they will not qualify. We are saying that those who played by the rules will have a fair opportunity to have their case heard by an immigration judge. I welcome comments from the broader community on this legislation, and look forward to the opportunity to work with the Senate Judiciary Committee and Immigration Subcommittee to ensure its future success. I ask my Senate colleagues to join with me today in this bipartisan effort to ensure fairness to hard working families.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, before we complete action on the Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations bill, I wanted to compliment the chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking member, Senator Bumpers, for their very hard work and very able leadership. All the Members know of the many demands placed on the subcommittee to fund many worthwhile projects. We also know that the discretionary spending available to the Agriculture Subcommittee has been reduced substantially over the last several years. This very limited funding makes it difficult to fund all the many excellent proposals that have come to the subcommittee for consideration. Mr. President, while I understand the limitations of the subcommittee to fund all good projects, I would be less than frank if I did not mention my disappointment with a number of items that were left out of this bill. One of those projects not funded by this bill is an Extension Service training project to help bring behavioral and mental health services to rural areas. As the Members know, the Extension Service is a long and well established institution that exists across the country in almost every county in America. In the minds of most people, the Extension Service and the Extension agents are focused on agricultural and farm issues. While this impression is true the facts also reveal that the Extension Service is called on more and more to help meet family, health, and social service needs of our rural residents. The array of services offered by the Extension Service is established at the State level by State priorities. In my State, and I am sure in other States, as well, the Extension Service is doing a great job in meeting rural needs for a broad array of services. In Florida, for example, following Hurricane Andrew, our Extension agents were trained to provide threshold counseling services to rural residents who were under severe emotional stress following the storm. The agents were trained to identify problems, provide initial counseling and to refer severe cases to appropriate professionals. This training was provided by the University of Florida and the program received a USDA award. The University of Florida was recently invited to North Dakota to train Extension agents following the floods. Initial reports from the Director of the Extension Service in North Dakota is that the program ``exceeded expectations''. Mr. President, for a very small amount of money this bill could have created a small program or center to be a national resource for the Extension Service. This center would train the agents from the various States to be better able to provide the counseling services that they are more and more being called on to provide. The demand for these services is due in large part to the lack of service providers in rural areas. Mr. President, it is my hope and expectation that the Department will look at this proposal very carefully and reprogram some funds or include it in the Department's next budget request. It is a program that has been proven to work. It is a program that meets a very large need in our rural areas. In the process of this review I would also expect that the Department meet with the appropriate officials at the University of Florida who have a track record in this area.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at the completion of these brief remarks, I will send an amendment to the desk. Mr. President, last year in consideration of this same appropriations bill, the Senate and the House adopted and the President signed into law what is known as the Alu-O'Hara bill. This is legislation which was the result of a tragic circumstance in which two law enforcement officers called to a hostage-taking scene were seriously burned when the hostage taker set on fire the structure in which the hostages were being held. These two law enforcement officers were subsequently discharged from the law enforcement agency because of their severe injuries, and in the course of their discharge they lost their insurance coverage. So now they were two heroes out of work, lifetime injuries and without health insurance. This Alu-O'Hara bill, which we adopted last year, provided that law enforcement agencies would provide to any public service officer ``who retires or is separated from service due to an injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in line of duty while responding to an emergency situation or in hot pursuit with the same or better level of health insurance benefits that are otherwise paid by the entity to a public service officer at the time of retirement or separation.'' The enforcement for this was a reduction in that local law enforcement block grant award. Mr. President, as I indicate, this has been the law since last year. It is currently in the House appropriations bill. Frankly, we are seeking an opportunity to put this into substantive law so we will not have to continue to rely upon the appropriations bill as the means of continuing this important protection for law enforcement officers which has strong support by all the major law enforcement agencies in America. So I send this amendment to the desk and will ask my colleagues for its favorable adoption when we consider these matters on Tuesday.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the pending amendment, which will restore $30 million of funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. President, unless we reverse the decision that has been made by the Appropriations Committee, the Senate will be on record as eliminating this unique, flexible, low-cost, public-private partnership, an important foreign policy instrument, an instrument that has proven important today in furthering U.S. interests, as important today as it was in 1983 when established with the active support and leadership of President Ronald Reagan. Mr. President, the Senate has debated the future of the National Endowment for Democracy virtually every year in recent years. Every year, proponents of continuing the Endowment have prevailed, but the fight has taken a toll. NED's budget has been whittled down by almost 15 percent over the last 3 years, and its authorization is now flat for the next 2 years. Any further cuts will severely hamper NED's ability to carry out its important programs. That is why so many of us are here today concerned that its current budget be sustained at the requested level of $30 million. Mr. President, although we once again are debating NED's future, this recurring debate has been, and continues to be, more about our future and our view of the world than it does this one Federal initiative for democracy. It is also about how the American people view America's role in the world. In examining that world view, several fundamental questions must be answered. First and foremost is the question of whether it is in the interest of the United States of America to remain actively engaged in world affairs. Second, is it in our interest to creatively promote peaceful democratic change? To put it another way, is it in our interest to stay one step ahead of tomorrow's costly conflicts by promoting peaceful democratic change today? Finally, does the National Endowment for Democracy make a positive contribution to advancing these interests? Mr. President, I submit that the answer to each of these questions is yes. I would briefly wish to cite two examples. First, in our own hemisphere, the United States has had a long and, I suggest, painful and destructive history of being involved in our hemisphere only when we faced an immediate security, political, or economic crisis. Once the crisis passed, our interests waned and then evaporated. Mr. President, in large part because of some of the things that the United States led in the last 50 years, we now have a period of democratic government within our hemisphere that we have never known since Christopher Columbus discovered the new world. Those democracies, from Guatemala to Argentina, are new. They are enthusiastic. But they lack the kinds of deep roots that will assure their longevity. It is exactly nations such as that and building those roots that will sustain democracy that the National Endowment for Democracy has exhibited, and it is in exactly those circumstances within Latin America and the Caribbean that the endowment has played such an important role, and I submit will play an even more important role in the future. Another prime example is China. Those who understand and care about the need for long-term democratic change in China strongly support the National Endowment for Democracy. That is because the National Endowment for Democracy is working with human rights activists to bring to life abuses by the current regime. The endowment is also creatively exploring openings at the local level to help officials establish independent elections. NED is on the ground working in China every day in ways that very directly further United States national interests. No other agency of this Government is equipped to carry out the kind of innovative grassroots work as is the National Endowment for Democracy. If we are to successfully engage China over the long term, if we are positively to influence United States-China relations, if we are to reverse our past history and demonstrate a sustained commitment to democratic institutions within our nearest neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, the National Endowment for Democracy must necessarily be an essential ingredient in that United States policy. Indeed, the long-term impact we are confident NED to have in China is on display today in Mexico, where the Endowment's support of the Civic Alliance, a coalition of non-governmental organizations in that country, paved the way for electoral reform that resulted in the freest elections in Mexico's history. The result has been a deepening of democracy, and a sense among the Mexican people that casting ballots can produce positive change in their lives. The result is a government which is far more stable and responsive to the people's needs. The Mexican people benefit, and so do we. Mr. President, China and Mexico are only two examples of NED's work. Indeed, the Endowment is helping dissidents in over 90 countries, including dissidents who are fighting for democratic change in Cuba, Burma, Nigeria, Belarus, Serbia, and Sudan. NED is working to strengthen democratic institutions in Russia, Ukraine, and South Africa. This is vitally important work. And there are many informed observers who see it the same way. Former Secretaries of State Baker, Eagleburger, Haig, Kissinger, Shultz, and Vance are on record in support of NED. According to them: During this period of international change and uncertainty, the work of the NED continues to be an important bipartisan but non-government contributor to democratic reform and freedom. We consider the non-governmental character of the NED even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding * * * Former National Security Advisors Allen, Carlucci, Brzezinski, and Scowcroft also are on record in support. They have stated that: The endowment, a small bipartisan institution with its roots in America's's private sector, operates in situations where direct government involvement is not appropriate. It is an exceptionally effective instrument in today's climate for reaching dedicated groups seeking to counter extreme nationalist and autocratic forces that are responsible for so much conflict and instability. Eliminating this program would be particularly unsettling to our friends around the world, and could be interpreted as sign of America's disengagement from the vital policy of supporting democracy. The endowment remains a critical and cost-effective investment in a more secure America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous to have printed in the Record an exchange of correspondence I recently had with National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. He responded in a July 21 letter reaffirming strong administration support the NED and ``our opposition to any effort reduce or eliminate NED funding.''

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like now to take this opportunity to clarify some misconceptions that have arisen regarding NED and its work over the years. Two of those misconceptions are contained in the report accompanying the bill we are now debating. The report states that, because NED was created to support democratic movements behind the Iron Curtain, it is no longer needed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, NED was never intended to be a cold war institution. In Ronald Reagan's speech that helped launch the Endowment, he offered the following vision of NED: . . . To foster the infrastructure of democracy--the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities-- which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means. He referred to the work of Western European parties assisting counterpart institutions and of the foundation looking into ``how the United States can best contribute as a nation to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force.'' It is true that the Endowment supported Solidarity and other dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. But that represented a small percentage of its funding. In fact, in the early years of the Endowment, approximately half of its funds went to support the growing democratic movements in Latin America. This had nothing to do with the cold war and everything to do with the reason NED was created and the reason it exists today--because America believes that the spread of democracy is good for the people of these countries, and ultimately, for the people of the United States as well. NED's work in the Middle East, in East Asia, in Central Asia, in Africa, in Bosnia, in Mexico, demonstrates that in the post-cold-war world, efforts to foster civil society are even more relevant today than they were when the Endowment was created. The report accompanying this bill goes on to state that NED was never intended to be a ``private-public partnership.'' According to the Congressional Research Service, which carefully researched NED's legislative history, ``While NED was originally established as a private entity, private funding was not required. Neither the congressional debate in 1983, nor the National Endowment for Democracy Act--the law establishing NED--indicates private source funding would be required.'' It is true that NED does raise some funds in the private sector, primarily to support its International Forum for Democratic Studies, which is a research center and clearinghouse for worldwide information about democracy. In addition, NED has calculated that its funding leverages over 70 cents for every program dollar it grants. The essential point, however, is that the founders of NED never imagined that this would be a privately funded effort. To the contrary, because NED serves the national interest, it is an entirely worthwhile expenditure of the Federal Government. Several other misperceptions have dominated this debate in the past. Let me address them as well. Opponents have suggested that the Endowment duplicates those of the Agency for International Development. AID Administrator Brian Atwood reported to the House Committee on International Relations in March 1996, following an extensive review of hundreds of programs funded by his agency and those of the Endowment. His report stated: We found that USAID and NED do not duplicate, but rather complement each other's efforts. In the same report, Atwood outlined a series of steps that AID and NED have taken together to make sure that this lack of duplication continues. NED and its supporters also have been accused of keeping a GAO report calling for a reassessment of NED's funding from being issued. This is a nonissue originally raised in print by a long time NED opponent. The facts are quite simple: The General Accounting Office, after an exhaustive study of U.S. Government programs to promote democracy, concluded that there was no significant overlap between those funded by NED and official agencies. Referring to the stops that have been taken between AID and NED to make sure the lack of duplication between their programs continues, a GAO official wrote to House International Relations Chairman Gilman and Ranking Member Hamilton that the Agency's concerns about potential overlap had been allayed. Another charge frequently made against NED is its funding is used disproportionately for travel. Some of the over 300 programs that are funded annually by the Endowment involve the use of experts from the United States and abroad who travel pro bono basis to share their knowledge and experiences with grassroots Democrats. Many of these trips are under adverse circumstances to places that can hardly be regarded as vacation spots and the trips are not only working trips but frequently quite rigorous for participants. The amount of free time that is donated by these experts is rather significant in dollar terms. Opponents also charge NED with funding meaningless conferences. NED funds in fact are used to assist organizations working inside countries. Occasionally NED funds gatherings of democrats in exile who cannot operate in their home countries. Countries such as China and Cuba fall in this category. An example of a conference pointed to as insignificant by some NED critics is a meeting held in 1995 in Zagreb, Croatia. In fact this particular conference brought together activists from all the countries of the former Yugoslavia at the height of the war to exchange information. The meeting succeeded in matching funders and civic groups in the region in desperate need of help. Apart from bringing together democrats in a war situation the meeting has led to a number of worthwhile projects in a region that desperately needs to build up its civil society. Mr. President, NED deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to support a restoration of this funding.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Two minutes equally divided.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that once again the Senate has chosen to continue our Nation's commitment to the future through the exploration and study of space. Especially as we stand here today knowing that the Sojourner Rover continues its unprecedented exploration of the surface of Mars. NASA is now turning its attention to the many new missions scheduled for future, including the construction of the international space station. Mr. President, we must continue to invest in this pursuit of knowledge. No one can predict the outcome of our investment in the space program, but one thing is certain, and that is generations to come will benefit from the knowledge and experience gained from the investment we have made, and continued exploration of space will present many more opportunities to learn. First, the space program will provide significant contributions not only to Americans, but people all around the world. We have already seen results of space-related research in life science. Recently I learned of a NASA technology which is now being used to help diagnose vision problems in our children. This coming school year, the State of Florida will be using this technology to screen all students in kindergarten. By discovering vision problems at such an early age, we will prevent many of these children from falling behind because of undetected impairments. This type of commercial application of NASA born technology is virtually limitless. Second, our Nation's leadership role in high technology research and development must be maintained and enhanced. The aerospace industry is a significant area of America's international competitiveness. Third, projects such as the international space station help to continue and expand cooperation among the world's nations. Our collaborative efforts with the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians only serve to strengthen our relations in a global community. Our space program enables us to exchange exciting ideas with the world, and accelerate the pace of our own technology and space exploration. Mr. President I believe that these are very compelling reasons for continued support of our space program. NASA deserves our support. Congress and the administration should provide the appropriate resources needed for NASA to successfully manage and enhance our space program. We must invest in our future, and invest in ourselves. pilot program for affordable drugs for the terminally ill

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a simple, straightforward sense- of-the-Senate resolution regarding natural disasters. The rising cost of natural disasters is a ticking time bomb that we, in Congress, are doing little to address. Since 1989 the cost to taxpayers has been nearly $40 billion. Just this past weekend Hurricane Danny hit portions of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and my State of Florida. Although Hurricane Danny was a relatively small storm, just imagine if Hurricane Danny had been of the magnitude of a Hurricane Hugo or Andrew. The damages would be exponentially larger. Hurricane Danny serves as a stark reminder of the ticking time bomb. We should keep in mind that we are only very early in what is expected to be an extremely active hurricane season. The time to act is sooner rather than later. My resolution would state that it is the sense of the Senate that Congress consider legislation to deal with the rising cost of natural disaster head on--before another megadisaster occurs. What will it take for Congress to focus on this ticking time bomb? Another Northridge earthquake that comes with a sticker price of $8.6 billion? Another Hurricane Andrew or Hugo to cost the Federal Government $6.2 and $3 billion, respectively? Helping our Nation better prepare for natural disasters will require Federal, State, and local efforts as well as initiatives from the private sector. My resolution states that Congress should consider Federal legislation embracing the following principles: First, people living in areas that are prone to natural disasters should assume a practical level of responsibility by acquiring private property insurance. The problem is that in some areas, especially in my home State of Florida, it is very difficult for individuals to get adequate private property insurance. This leads us to the second principle. Second, the insurance industry, in partnership with the Federal Government, should develop a new mechanism to spread the risk of natural disasters minimizing the cost of these disasters for the Federal Government. The goal of spreading the risk is to make private insurance available and affordable for everyone. Third, a partnership should be forged between the private sector and governments at all levels to encourage better disaster preparedness and response. No one is expecting to find a magic solution to natural disasters. The National Weather Service cannot play like the FBI's bomb squad and snip a few strategically placed wires to disarm future hurricanes. Nor can the National Science Foundation invent a way to stop the movement of tectonic plates and ensure that there will be no more earthquakes. But the Federal Government can at least begin discussing creative ways to assist States in preparing for and responding to natural disasters. That is the intent of my resolution--to begin the discussion. We cannot continue to fund natural disaster after the fact. We must take steps to make sure that every person in disaster prone areas has available, affordable property and casualty insurance. We must work with the private sector to find creative ways of shifting the responsibility for the risk of disasters to the private sector and reduce the cost to the Federal Government. We must encourage States to better prepare themselves for disasters and to have a clear game plan to respond when hit by a natural catastrophe. In the next few days I will circulate a letter that I encourage all my colleagues to join me in signing. The letter will be sent to the U.S. Department of the Treasury asking for their assistance and guidance in developing such an initiative. Mr. President, our Nation has been beset by an unusual series of natural disasters, some of which have occurred as recently as the past few days in Mississippi, Alabama, and my State of Florida and others earlier this year in the upper Midwest. This sense of the Senate asks that the Senate at an appropriate future time consider legislation that embodies the following principles: That persons who live in areas of risk of natural disaster should assume a practical level of personal responsibility for the risks through private insurance; second, that the insurance industry in partnership with the Federal Government and other private sector entities should establish new mechanisms for spreading the risks of catastrophes that minimize the involvement and liability of the Federal Government; and third, a partnership should be formed between the private sector and Government at all levels to encourage better disaster preparation and respond quickly to the fiscal and financial impacts of catastrophic natural disasters. Mr. President, the purpose of this sense of the Senate is to encourage those entities that have been working over the last 2 years to try to embody these principles into legislation that could be presented to the Congress, that in light of what has recently occurred they redouble their efforts to present to the Nation an appropriate partnership framework that would both mitigate and respond to natural disasters. Mr. President, I send to the desk the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 948 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should consider legislation concerning catastrophic natural disasters)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in our office, Mary O'Brien, be given floor privileges for the pendency of this sense of the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would only ask for 2 minutes equally divided. I have a sense of the Senate which I believe has been agreed to, and I am not going to ask for a recorded vote on that sense of the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to extend my appreciation to the managers of the bill and to my colleagues for allowing expedited consideration of this matter.

Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will both support our national agricultural industries and bolster the abilities of American consumers to make educated choices about the fruits and vegetables that they purchase for their families: the Imported Produce Labeling Act of 1997. This important legislation extends our current country-of-origin labeling laws--enacted as part of the Tariff Act of 1930--to require country-of-origin labeling of imported produce at the final point of sale, which for most Americans is the grocery store. It would bolster food safety, give consumers more information, and allow American growers to achieve some benefit from the heavy investment they make in complying with health, labor, and environmental laws. Mr. President, country-of-origin labeling is not a new idea. For decades, European nations, Japan, and Canada have informed consumers about the origins of the produce available for purchase. One need only to walk through a supermarket in Paris to notice the international nature of the produce sold. Shoppers can purchase apples from the United States, tomatoes from Holland, grapes from Spain, pears from France, peaches from Italy, and oranges from Israel. Our American supermarkets also carry agricultural products from a wide range of exporting nations. Why, then, do our consumers lack the advantage that their French, Japanese, and Canadian counterparts enjoy: the ability to make informed choices about the food they feed to their families? It doesn't have to be that way. For 18 years, Florida grocery store customers have enjoyed the benefits of a law very similar to what I am proposing today. In 1979, during my first term as Governor, the Florida State Legislature enacted the Produce Labeling Act, a law that is now administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The law has been implemented with almost no additional regulation and at extremely small cost to Florida taxpayers. Extra supermarket inspections are not required. Department of Agriculture inspectors verify compliance with the law as a part of their already planned, routine inspections of all retail food stores in the State. Florida's policy also expends limited time and money. A standard inspection takes approximately 15 minutes, the time needed to review displays and document discrepancies. And enforcement costs are estimated to be less than $40,000 annually for the department's inspection of over 23,000 retail food establishments. While costs are low, the benefits that Floridians have enjoyed as a result of this policy are significant. Most importantly, consumers are armed with important information about the products upon which they spend their hard-earned paycheck. Here's what that means: The ``Made In The USA'' label can draw more customers to domestic produce, thus supporting American farmers and the U.S. economy as a whole. Consumers have the ability to seek out foreign produce that is known for its high quality. Shoppers have the information needed to boycott products from countries that exploit workers with low pay, poor working conditions, or child labor. American families can protect their own health from products subjected to unsafe or unsanitary produce-handling practices. The Florida Department of Agriculture reports that the State's labeling law has been both well-received and cost-effective. It costs a store only $5 to $10 per week to implement, and the estimated industry compliance costs statewide are less than $200,000 annually. In plain terms, this means that for less than $200,000, consumers in a State that has 14 million residents and each year welcomes over 30 million visitors have the basic information regarding the origins of the produce on their supermarket shelves. That's a small price to pay for the ability to make educated choices in the marketplace. It is my goal--and that of my cosponsors, Senator Craig of Idaho and Senator Johnson of South Dakota--to ensure that all American consumers are armed with the same ability to make informed choices as their counterparts in Florida, Europe, and Japan. We are introducing this legislation because the changing nature of the agriculture market demands changes in our Nation's trade policy. Sixty-seven years ago, when the Tariff Act of 1930 was enacted, fresh fruits and vegetables were exempt from labeling laws. The Tariff Act dictates that items are required to be labeled with their country of origin only on their outermost container. In the case of fresh fruit and vegetables, the outermost container is the shipping container, from which produce is removed long before it ever reaches the consumer. Obviously, the consumer market has changed dramatically since 1930. Whereas imported produce was once almost nonexistent in the United States, it now constitutes a $1.7 billion industry. In fact, 60 percent of our winter fruits and vegetables come from Mexico alone. As imports have become a fixture in the domestic marketplace, our growers and their associations have argued for country of origin labeling. But this is an issue that unites producers and consumers. Research has shown that an overwhelming number of American consumers would like to know where their produce is grown--and they want that information made readily available. Our bill is not cumbersome. It simply says that a retailer of a perishable agricultural product imported into the United States shall inform consumers as to the national origins of that product. Nor is it designed to give American products an unfair advantage in the marketplace. In fact, foreign growers who believe that they grow a superior product to ours see this legislation as a prime opportunity to sell more of their goods in American supermarkets. And finally, this bill does not suppress free trade or the free market system. It simply seeks to level the regulatory playing field. Shoppers in the European Union and Canada benefit from a county-of- origin labeling requirement. American consumers should have access to the same kind of information. The Imported Produce Labeling Act constitutes one of the most important agriculture trade initiatives that will come before us during this Congress. It is a vital part of efforts to bolster one of the most critical elements of our free-enterprise system: informed choice. I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will both support our national agricultural industries and bolster the abilities of American consumers to make educated choices about the fruits and vegetables that they purchase for their families: the Imported Produce Labeling Act of 1997. This important legislation extends our current country-of-origin labeling laws--enacted as part of the Tariff Act of 1930--to require country-of-origin labeling of imported produce at the final point of sale, which for most Americans is the grocery store. It would bolster food safety, give consumers more information, and allow American growers to achieve some benefit from the heavy investment they make in complying with health, labor, and environmental laws. Mr. President, country-of-origin labeling is not a new idea. For decades, European nations, Japan, and Canada have informed consumers about the origins of the produce available for purchase. One need only to walk through a supermarket in Paris to notice the international nature of the produce sold. Shoppers can purchase apples from the United States, tomatoes from Holland, grapes from Spain, pears from France, peaches from Italy, and oranges from Israel. Our American supermarkets also carry agricultural products from a wide range of exporting nations. Why, then, do our consumers lack the advantage that their French, Japanese, and Canadian counterparts enjoy: the ability to make informed choices about the food they feed to their families? It doesn't have to be that way. For 18 years, Florida grocery store customers have enjoyed the benefits of a law very similar to what I am proposing today. In 1979, during my first term as Governor, the Florida State Legislature enacted the Produce Labeling Act, a law that is now administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The law has been implemented with almost no additional regulation and at extremely small cost to Florida taxpayers. Extra supermarket inspections are not required. Department of Agriculture inspectors verify compliance with the law as a part of their already planned, routine inspections of all retail food stores in the State. Florida's policy also expends limited time and money. A standard inspection takes approximately 15 minutes, the time needed to review displays and document discrepancies. And enforcement costs are estimated to be less than $40,000 annually for the department's inspection of over 23,000 retail food establishments. While costs are low, the benefits that Floridians have enjoyed as a result of this policy are significant. Most importantly, consumers are armed with important information about the products upon which they spend their hard-earned paycheck. Here's what that means: The ``Made In The USA'' label can draw more customers to domestic produce, thus supporting American farmers and the U.S. economy as a whole. Consumers have the ability to seek out foreign produce that is known for its high quality. Shoppers have the information needed to boycott products from countries that exploit workers with low pay, poor working conditions, or child labor. American families can protect their own health from products subjected to unsafe or unsanitary produce-handling practices. The Florida Department of Agriculture reports that the State's labeling law has been both well-received and cost-effective. It costs a store only $5 to $10 per week to implement, and the estimated industry compliance costs statewide are less than $200,000 annually. In plain terms, this means that for less than $200,000, consumers in a State that has 14 million residents and each year welcomes over 30 million visitors have the basic information regarding the origins of the produce on their supermarket shelves. That's a small price to pay for the ability to make educated choices in the marketplace. It is my goal--and that of my cosponsors, Senator Craig of Idaho and Senator Johnson of South Dakota--to ensure that all American consumers are armed with the same ability to make informed choices as their counterparts in Florida, Europe, and Japan. We are introducing this legislation because the changing nature of the agriculture market demands changes in our Nation's trade policy. Sixty-seven years ago, when the Tariff Act of 1930 was enacted, fresh fruits and vegetables were exempt from labeling laws. The Tariff Act dictates that items are required to be labeled with their country of origin only on their outermost container. In the case of fresh fruit and vegetables, the outermost container is the shipping container, from which produce is removed long before it ever reaches the consumer. Obviously, the consumer market has changed dramatically since 1930. Whereas imported produce was once almost nonexistent in the United States, it now constitutes a $1.7 billion industry. In fact, 60 percent of our winter fruits and vegetables come from Mexico alone. As imports have become a fixture in the domestic marketplace, our growers and their associations have argued for country of origin labeling. But this is an issue that unites producers and consumers. Research has shown that an overwhelming number of American consumers would like to know where their produce is grown--and they want that information made readily available. Our bill is not cumbersome. It simply says that a retailer of a perishable agricultural product imported into the United States shall inform consumers as to the national origins of that product. Nor is it designed to give American products an unfair advantage in the marketplace. In fact, foreign growers who believe that they grow a superior product to ours see this legislation as a prime opportunity to sell more of their goods in American supermarkets. And finally, this bill does not suppress free trade or the free market system. It simply seeks to level the regulatory playing field. Shoppers in the European Union and Canada benefit from a county-of- origin labeling requirement. American consumers should have access to the same kind of information. The Imported Produce Labeling Act constitutes one of the most important agriculture trade initiatives that will come before us during this Congress. It is a vital part of efforts to bolster one of the most critical elements of our free-enterprise system: informed choice. I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Torricelli. I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by our colleague from New Mexico. The policy of the United States toward Cuba is too serious, it is too delicate, it has too many ramifications to be settled in debate which this morning will provide 5 minutes per side to discuss the nuances of what is entailed in this seemingly humanitarian and benign amendment. If there is to be a change in policy, it should be the result of studied consideration of all of the implications of specific proposals, not extracting three items from a complex set of relationships that involve not only Cuba but also many other nations in the world. Second, there is no need for this amendment. One of the principal parts of this amendment is related to humanitarian aid, particularly after a natural disaster--a very appealing concept for Americans. It is so appealing that, in fact, the United States is already the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. In the last 4 years, the U.S. Government has licensed more than $150 million of humanitarian assistance to Cuba, more than the total of all other nations combined. So the United States has not stood by in times of humanitarian need for the people of Cuba. With reference to travel to Cuba, American citizens already can travel to Cuba once a year with virtually no restraints in order to attend to a humanitarian family need. This would open the gates beyond that to allow unlimited visits to Cuba.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I urge the Senate defer the debate on what should be our policy in the future toward Cuba to another day, when we can give it the attention that it requires, and defeat this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Leahy, regarding the meaning and intent of a provision in this bill, section 569. This involves a matter of great importance to my colleague Mr. Leahy and myself--human rights. I commend my colleague for his leadership on this important issue. I share your concern that U.S. foreign assistance funds not be used by perpetrators of gross violations of human rights. I also share your interest in ensuring that perpetrators of such crimes are brought to justice. To this end, section 569 of this act prevents funds made available under this act from being provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence to believe a member of such unit has committed gross violations of human rights. Would the Chairman agree that this provision only applies to units of the security forces of a foreign country that currently have members against whom we have credible evidence of gross violations of human rights.

Mr. GRAHAM. So that if a unit was believed to have had, at some time in the past, a person against whom we have credible evidence of human rights abuses, but that no such person currently is a member of such a unit, that unit would be eligible to receive assistance under this act?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Vermont, and I look forward to working with him on this matter in the future.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, cosponsored by Mr. Mack and Mr. Grassley, which will expand the existing south Florida high-intensity drug trafficking area [HIDTA], to include the Interstate 4 corridor which runs between Daytona Beach and the Tampa Bay area in my home State of Florida. Illegal drug activities continue to plague the State of Florida. In 1994, more than $5 billion in funds from cocaine traffic were laundered through south Florida and the I-4 corridor. Over 23 metric tons of cocaine were seized during that same time period. Over 250 organized drug trafficking groups have been identified as operating between south Florida and the I-4 corridor. These statistic are staggering. While some progress is being made to limit the spread of illegal drugs, there is still a lot of work to be done. I continuously hear from the law enforcement personnel operating along the I-4 corridor that they are being overwhelmed by the growth in drug trafficking activities in that area. Drug traffickers are becoming increasingly proficient in distributing drugs. They are using high technology equipment to evade detection. They have an extensive communications network, and almost unlimited funds with which to pursue their illegal activities. Current law enforcement assets are simply no match for the highly organized drug operators. Seized assets from drug traffickers in this area during 1996 included over $425 million in currency and property. The basic problem is how do we compete with these highly funded and well equipped drug trafficking organizations? I repeatedly hear the same story from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Customs Service, the FBI, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; they need help. This is a problem which impacts not only the State of Florida, but it also impacts the entire Nation as illegal drugs are distributed from the I-4 corridor to other parts of the country. The statistics on the growth of the drug industry along the I-4 corridor are sobering. Nationwide, cheap, high purity heroin is making a comeback in popularity, and demand is on the rise. The drug syndicates are meeting the growing demands. Cocaine continues as a popular recreational drug. As long as there is a demand, drug dealers continue to find ways to meet that demand. Despite a massive education and public awareness campaign to warn teenagers about the dangers of drug use, teen drug arrests have more than doubled in the past 5 years. Some of those arrested are as young as 12 years old. In the Orlando area, over 1,500 teens between the ages of 12 and 17 years old were arrested for using or selling illegal drugs in 1995. The city of Orlando, through which the I-4 corridor runs, ranked fifth in the Nation for cocaine-related deaths per capita in 1995. Other crimes such as shootings, carjackings, robbery, and gang activities are byproducts of the drug problem, and are also on the rise in our local communities. We are truly battling for the lives of our young people. There is a general feeling of despair among the various agencies trying to combat this problem. We need to be proactive in helping them. Because of its central location, the I-4 corridor is emerging as a hub used increasingly by international drug syndicates to distribute their goods throughout the Nation. This is a problem which affects us all. The use of illegal drugs and drug related deaths are increasing at an alarming rate. As we saw with the establishment of a HIDTA in south Florida, a coordinated Federal, State, and local effort is the key to bringing this problem under control. This HIDTA has proven itself as a model of efficiency and effectiveness in controlling the expansion of drug activities in the area. The existing south Florida HIDTA is a model of the results which can occur when the various law enforcement agencies mount a coordinated battle with a unified strategy of engagement. We have seen moderation in the drug related incidents since the south Florida HIDTA was established in 1990. In fact, the success of the south Florida HIDTA is partially responsible for the increase in illegal drug activity along the I-4 corridor. Expanding this successful HIDTA to include the I-4 corridor makes common sense. It will allow us to devote additional resources to combat a problem which has nationwide implications. By implementing a coordinated enforcement strategy directed at combating the problems of illegal drugs and violent crime, we demonstrate to the drug community that we are dedicated to facing this battle head on--and finally, it will show that we are committed protecting the future of our young people.