Bob Graham

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.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Moynihan and my other colleagues to submit a resolution that will allow Holocaust survivors to receive the reparations they so rightly deserve. There are over 125,000 Holocaust survivors living in the United States. My State of Florida houses the second largest population in the United States Approximately 500,000 survivors worldwide are living out their final days. Many still suffer from the injuries they received during the Nazi occupation. While the German Government has acted in good faith in attempting to take responsibility for the horrible actions of the Nazi regime, many survivors have been prevented from receiving reparations due to burdensome eligibility requirements. We recognize that since 1952, Germany has contributed to the compensation of those that survived the Holocaust. However, after 50 years, hundreds of thousands of elderly Holocaust survivors are still unable to afford critically needed medical care, and many of their medical problems are a direct result of their years in Nazi concentration camps. In May, it was acknowledged that, in addition to the regular pensions and medical insurance the German Government provides, war disability pensions are still being paid to veterans of the Nazi armed forces and the non-German Waffen-SS, Hitler's special death squads. According to the Wiesenthal Center, the SS disability pensions alone are three times the reparations paid to the Holocaust survivors. This resolution calls for the German Government to expand and simplify its system of reparations so that a medical fund may be established to cover medical expenses for Holocaust survivors throughout the world. Regardless of nationality or the length or place of internment, Holocaust survivors will be guaranteed the opportunity to live the remainder of their lives with the knowledge that they will always be able to receive the medical care they need. Holocaust survivors have lived enough of their life in suffering. We must now insure that they live the rest of their lives in dignity. We hope the German Government will continue to accept responsibility and set up a fund to help the victims of Nazi terror. I urge my colleagues to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this tax legislation, as passed by the Senate Finance Committee, goes a long way toward assisting our Nation's families. For example, reducing the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent will stimulate savings and investment. This increased investment will, in turn, foster economic growth. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to a provision that will have considerable impact on our Nation's families: the capital gains exclusion for homeowners who sell their primary residence. Under current law, capital gains from the sale of principal residences is subject to taxation, with two limited exceptions. First, under the rollover provision, taxpayers can rollover gains from the sale of a principal residence into a new residence. They can then defer any capital gains tax--but only if the purchase price of the new home exceeds the adjusted sales price of the old one. And to restrict this even more, the new residence must be purchased within 2 years of the sale of the first home. A second exemption ties the capital gains tax to age. At age 55, a taxpayer can exclude up to $125,000 of any accumulated gain from the sale of a principal residence. And this is a one-time-only opportunity. Worse yet, even this is restricted. To qualify for the exclusion, the taxpayer must have owned the residence and used it as a principal residence for at least 3 years during the five years before the sale. Also, a taxpayer is eligible for the exclusion only if neither the taxpayer nor the taxpayer's spouse has previously benefitted from the exclusion. Unfortunately, the very provisions which are supposed to relieve homeowners from taxation often prevent them from making the soundest financial decisions. Under current law, to avoid being taxed, most people wait until they are eligible for the one-time exclusion, or they make what may be imprudent decisions regarding the sale of their homes. For example, many families, after their children have moved out, would like to sell their home and buy a less expensive one. However, the rollover provision means that they will have to pay taxes on the difference between the profit gained on the sale of their old home and the cost of their new home. As a result, these families often choose to buy more expensive homes or not to sell their home at all. Mr. President, that is not right. People should be able to move when and where they want to, not when the tax code makes it financially possible. Under the legislation passed by the Finance Committee, taxpayers of any age could exclude gain on the sale of a principal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing a joint return, and up to $250,000 for single taxpayers. To be eligible, the taxpayer must have owned and used the home as the principal residence for at least two of the last 5 years prior to the sale. The exclusion will generally be available once every 2 years. This legislation will give our Nation's families more freedom in deciding where to live. This decision can be based on family circumstances rather than on the Tax Code. The bill would also relieve nearly all families of the burdensome record-keeping requirements and constraints on decision making under current law. The impact on our Nation's families will be tremendous, and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation. This bill will significantly impact our Nation's families. It will promote investment and boost long-term economic growth. And a healthy economy translates to increased opportunities for American families to secure their future. Our Nation's taxpayers work hard to provide for their families. This legislation is a chance for us to lend them a helping hand in that task. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Roth for working on this tax legislation in a fair, bipartisan manner. In particular, this bill includes several educational initiatives that will have a positive impact not only on the people of my home State of Florida but on the citizens--of every income--in our Nation as a whole. First, I applaud the chairman's provisions with respect to prepaid college tuition plans. Currently, 16 States offer and manage college savings programs, 5 States are in the process of implementing such programs, and the other 29 States have legislation pending or are studying the feasibility of creating these programs. Last year, Congress clarified the tax treatment of participation in prepaid college tuition plans. The 1996 Small Business Protection Act provided that any prepaid or savings State entity is tax-exempt. The act also clarified that earnings under prepaid programs are not taxed until distribution, and--when distributed--earnings would be taxed to the student beneficiary. Under the proposal approved by the Finance Committee, distributions from prepaid college tuition plans will be 100 percent tax-free. In addition, the definition of qualified higher education expenses will be expanded from current law. Under this legislation, tax-exempt benefits will now include room and board, as well as tuition, fees, and related expenses. Thus, families who plan ahead can lock in today's rates for almost all expenses incurred in their children's education. The legislation will have immeasurable benefits for our Nation's families. For example, Barbara and Jack Alfonso, who live in Miami, FL, have a 10-year-old son, Adrian. Back when Barbara finished high school, her parents could not afford to send her to college. She decided to take out loans to attend secretarial school. It took her 7 years to pay off those loans, so Barbara knows what it's like to be burdened with debt. Barbara and Jack decided that they didn't want their son to be faced with the same obstacles. So, when Adrian was 5, they invested in the Florida Prepaid College Tuition Program. They will make their last payment in October of this year. Adrian is a good student, and he deserves the opportunity to further his education. And because his parents chose to put aside money for his future by participating in the State's tuition program, Adrian will have this opportunity. Now Adrian can become one of the first college graduates in the Alfonso family. He can rest assured that his hard work will not have been in vain--that college is not a dream for him but a reality. As Barbara tells it: ``The best thing about this plan is that it gives me peace of mind.'' Thanks to a prepaid college tuition plan, Barbara knows that her son will be able to go to college. And thanks to this program, two hard-working parents are able to give their child what they never had. Their son will be better off than they were. With this legislation, families throughout our Nation will be better able to plan and save for their children's education. First, parents can save for their children's education without paying taxes. Second, parents can purchase tuition at today's rates and then withdraw this money when their children begin school. Tomorrow's education can be secured at today's prices. I would also like to thank Chairman Roth for including a portion of my school construction tax proposal, which would assist small and rural school districts. The provision that was included in this bill will positively impact issuers of small school construction bonds. These issuers will be exempt from arbitrage rebate requirements up to $10 million. Currently, there is a $5-million limit which applies to all bonds. With this provision, we are specifically helping small school districts to lower the cost of building new schools. I hope that this legislation is just the beginning of much more which this Congress will do to make a significant and substantial dent in the problem of school construction and rehabilitation needs. On behalf of all of our Nation's families, I would like to thank Chairman Roth for his efforts regarding these education initiatives. I think Barbara Alfonso says it best: ``We can't cut corners when it comes to education.'' Barbara is right. This legislation will allow us to invest in our most precious resource--our children--who are, of course, ultimately our future. rail fuel tax

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to offer my support for the pension provisions which are contained in the tax bill we are considering today. As a result of the bipartisan cooperation which has been demonstrated throughout this process, many American workers will move closer to a secure retirement. These provisions help a broad spectrum of workers and employers, and will contribute toward making pensions more available, equitable, portable and simpler. First, the provisions will expand coverage among workers at small businesses. The statistics concerning the lack of retirement coverage among small business workers are astounding. According to the Small Business Administration, only 13 percent of workers in businesses with less than 20 employees have pension plans and only 38 percent of workers in businesses employing between 21 and 100 employees currently have plans. Two provisions in this bill will address this problem. This bill will encourage even the smallest of small businesses to help their employees save for retirement through IRA payroll deductions. These payroll deductions are the easiest way for workers to save for their retirement. This bill clarifies that if a small business man or woman permits IRA payroll deductions, they will not be threatened with liability under ERISA. Small businesses will also be encouraged to establish pension plans by allowing partners and self-employed individuals to receive matching contributions under the same rules applicable to incorporated businesses. More small business owners will establish retirement plans because of this change. Second, this bill will help women. Although women are entering the work force at a larger rate than ever before, 25 million working women still do not have pension plans--this represents nearly 3 out of every 5 women who work in the private sector. Of these 25 million women, 12 million are employed by small businesses. Unfortunately, many of these working women have no pension plan. Many of these women would like to make contributions to an IRA, but cannot because their husband participates in an employee-sponsored retirement plan and tax law says that she cannot make a deductible contribution to an IRA because his participation is attributed to her. The Finance Committee bill eliminates a spouse's participation from the considerations relevant to contributing to a deductible IRA. With this provision, all Americans--working women, working men, and homemakers--will now have the opportunity to save, regardless of their spouse's participation in a retirement plan. Because of our bipartisan work on this issue, Susan Stratton of Tallahassee, FL, will be able to begin contributing to her retirement while her husband Charles continues contributing to his corporate plan. Susan is the owner of Care Packages, Inc., and will be able to save $2,000 per year in an IRA. Similarly, John Pollack of Orange County, FL, will be able to begin saving for his retirement because of this bill. As the owner of Allrite-Foto, John has not made any IRA contributions due to his wife Lorraine's corporate plan involvement. If this bill is enacted, John will be able to save for retirement along with his wife. As you can see by these two examples, this provision--championed by Senator Roth and Senator Breaux for many years--will be beneficial for both spouses. Third, the pension provisions in this bill begin to address a significant need in the pension area--portability. American workers are changing jobs much more frequently than ever before. Over the course of a 40-year career, the average worker will hold seven different jobs. Yet only 50 percent of current 401k plans accept rollovers from other plans. As a result, it has become imperative that these workers be able to transport their retirement plans when they change jobs. This bill makes it more attractive for businesses to accept rollovers. The bill provides that a plan will not be disqualified just because funds rolled over from a new employee's previous job come from a fund which has become disqualified. Although this is a good step, I will in coming days be pushing for more pension portability. Similar defined contribution plans should also be able to roll into each other. Money in a retirement stream should be kept there until retirement. Government plans should be able to roll into private-sector plans. Private sector plans should be able to roll into nonprofit plans and nonprofit plans should be able to roll into Government plans. Fourth, this bill will make pensions simpler to administer. One of the main reasons employers cite for not establishing or expanding pension coverage is red tape. The Finance Committee bill eliminates some of the paperwork burden it now takes to administer a pension. This bill asks that the Treasury Department and Department of Labor issue guidance on the use of new forms of electronic pension notification, and provides for the review of current rules to accommodate new technology. With the help of this new Internet and telecommunication technology, pension information will be more readily available to workers and less costly for employers to produce. Finally, this bill enhances pension security. Both businesses and workers will be helped by a provision phasing up the 150 percent of current liability limit. Under current law, companies are limited in the amount they can contribute to their employees' defined benefit plan. I believe companies should be able to increase funding of their pension plans in order to fully meet the needs of their future retirees. Companies can better budget if they have greater flexibility in what they put in their plan--and workers are better off, because the more companies contribute, the more secure their retirement. This bill gives companies that flexibility. Each of these provisions, as well as others I have not mentioned, will improve our private pension system. It is not all we should do to prepare for retirement in the 21st century, but it is a good start. I have been honored to work closely with many of my colleagues in bringing about these bipartisan pension changes. Senators Hatch, Grassley, Jeffords, Breaux and Moseley-Braun have been instrumental in bringing about these reforms, and I would like to commend them, and others, on their efforts. By finding this common ground on both sides of the political aisle, we are working to ensure that the American workers of today will have a more secure and prosperous retirement for tomorrow. Aviation Excise Tax

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is intimidating to speak after such poetic eloquence. One of the joys of serving in the U.S. Senate is to be part of a permanent class with Senator Byrd. Some students have left for their homes and Fourth of July activities and some of us were able to share in his just concluded statements on behalf of his wonderful State. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. I wish the same for Senator Byrd and his family. (The remarks of Mr. GRAHAM pertaining to the introduction of S. 984 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to introduce the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, and I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senators DeWine, Mack, McCain, and Moseley- Braun. This bill will enhance both our economic and national security, while at the same time strengthening that of some of our closest and most loyal neighbors and allies--the nations of the Caribbean Basin. Over the last decade, the United States has played a vital role in the spread of democracy and the growth of free enterprise throughout the Western Hemisphere. Today, every nation in the Western Hemisphere--with the notable, lamentable exception of Cuba, where despotism and communism are taking their last gasps of life--has a democratic government and is opening its economy in unprecedented ways. Democratic elections have become the norm rather than the exception, and hemispheric trade integration is a common goal. But we in the United States must not allow success to breed neglect. Now is not the time to turn away from Latin America and Caribbean or to turn our back on our backyard, something, unfortunately, that we have done all too often in the past. Continued attention is required to consolidate and institutionalize these democratic and economic gains. As we have seen recently in Haiti, economic and political instability in the Caribbean region can have tragic consequences and impose enormous costs to the United States. We must remain vigilant and engaged to ensure that other nations of the Caribbean Basin do not experience similar turmoil and tragedy. The United States-Carribean Basin Trade Enhancement Act is part of our effort to consolidate democracy and economic stability in the region. This act will bring tremendous benefits to the United States as well. It is in both our economic and our national security interests to enact this legislation. It will enhance our economic security both by opening new markets for American goods, and by strengthening the economies of our closest neighbors. Increased economic growth among the nations of the region will provide growing markets for U.S. products. The United States enjoys a trade surplus with the Caribbean Basin. Historically, our economy has been the chief beneficiary of a lowering of trade barriers between the Caribbean Basin and the United States. The United States' trade position relative to the Caribbean Basin countries improved dramatically following the implementation of the 1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative, from a deficit of $700 million in 1985 to a surplus of $2.0 billion in 1993. On a per capita basis, our surplus with the Caribbean has consistently outplaced our surplus with any other region of the world. In the past 3 years alone, U.S. exports to the Caribbean Basin countries have increased by 22.8 percent. This act also provides incentives for continued legal and regulatory reform that will make it easier for U.S. products to compete in the markets of the Caribbean Basin. By conditioning full benefits on the progress of economic reform, this act will benefit Americans as well as the people of the Caribbean. It will open Caribbean markets to U.S. goods and services, and expand opportunities for U.S. businesses to enjoy the fruits of economic expansion that is occurring in the region. Let me give a couple of examples of ways that the incentives in this legislation will help increase U.S. exports to the Caribbean. First, in order to receive any benefits, a country must demonstrate its commitment to undertake its World Trade Organization obligations on or ahead of schedule, and it must participate in negotiations toward the completion of a hemispheric free-trade agreement. Those are requirements for initial participation in this program. Second, Caribbean nations must meet certain economic requirements to receive the full benefits of our legislation, which are only available after the initial 3-year period. These full benefits include equitable and reasonable market access to U.S. companies, protection of intellectual property rights, protection to investors and investments, aggressive action against corruption, transparent and competitive procedures in government procurement, and the adoption of internationally established rules on customs valuation. This legislation also encourages our trading partners to enhance U.S.-Caribbean cooperation in fighting drug trafficking. Mr. President, this legislation is not a free ride. It is a two-way street. We are providing these nations with economic benefits, while at the same time expecting them to take steps that will be good for American economic interests. This act will strengthen Caribbean economies while providing incentives to implement reforms that will open new markets, and reduce risk, for U.S. companies who wish to compete in the Caribbean market. It will protect U.S. trademarks from piracy, permit U.S. companies to compete fairly for government procurement contracts, and help to eliminate corruption. This is a good deal for both the United States the countries of the Caribbean Basin. Our security interests are also at stake here. We have seen time and again how economic instability can foment political turmoil, which in turn can require American political or military involvement. In the past, as the citizens of my home State of Florida know all too well, economic and political instability has also resulted in massive refugee flows to the United States, which place an unfair burden on U.S. taxpayers. Second, the Caribbean has been one of the principal transit regions for drug traffickers moving their poisonous cargo from the source countries of South America. Several years ago, our efforts at reducing drug trafficking in the Caribbean were so successful that we diverted the traffickers to the Southwest border. Unfortunately, recent law enforcement efforts along the Southwest border have resulted in intensified relocated, re-energized narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean. It is critical that the people of the Caribbean Basin have real opportunities in the legal economy so they are not forced to turn to drug trafficking to feed their families. In addition, the recent World Trade Organization decision on bananas could have a devastating effect on the economies of several countries in the region, thereby exacerbating the potential for people to turn to illegal activities. Strengthening Caribbean economies through enhanced trade and economic activity will help keep drugs off the streets of America, and out of the hands of America's children. Mr. President, trade integration will occur in this hemisphere, whether we choose to be part of it or not. It is in our interest to bring more countries into bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with the United States. If we fail to seize this opportunity, others will take our place of leadership, and our economy will be the loser. This legislation gives us an opportunity to set the parameters of trade agreements, so that we can ensure that United States' interests are secured, and that truly fair trading relationships are established. There is no region in the world in which the United States has a stronger and more mutually beneficial relationship than the Caribbean Basin. This bill will enhance our trading relationship with our neighbors and have tremendous benefits for the United States. I urge my colleagues to consider and support the United States- Caribbean Trade Enhancement Act as a demonstration of our commitment to encouraging economic and political stability and to furthering the democratic progress that has been made in our hemisphere, and around the world. Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I thank my good friend and colleague from Nevada for his generosity in allowing us to take a moment at this time to introduce some distinguished guests. I might say that Senator Bryan visited Colombia in March of this year and I think came away with some of the same positive feelings about the country and the people that I share. We are honored today to have visitors, members of the Colombia National Senate: First, Senator Luis Londono, the President of the Colombia National Senate; Senator Amilkar Acosta, the President-elect; Senator Luis Velez, Senator Carlos Garcia, Senator German Vargas, and Senator Luis Perez. I present these members of the Colombia National Senate to the Members of the United States Senate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Rhode Island--the distinguished chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee--in the introduction of an initiative to help address our nation's infrastructure needs. Our initiative aims to harness the resources and energies of the public and the private sectors, and have them work in concert to ensure that a 21st century America has a modern system of roads, highways, and other critical public works assets. We are calling this new partnership the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1997-- TIFIA. Mr. President, the numbers paint a stark and disturbing picture of the state of our nation's infrastructure. A survey of our nation's community water system estimated that a minimum of $138.4 billion are needed over a 20 year period for the purposes of installing, upgrading, or replacing water mains, pipes, and processing facilities. Houston Mayor Bob Lanier, Chairman of the Rebuild America Coalition, reports that ``57 percent of highway pavement in all but a handful of states is in poor or mediocre condition; in some of the most populous regions, the figure is as high as 70%.'' The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that our nation must invest an additional $33 billion in surface transportation in order to stay ahead of future growth, congestion, and development. We are also faced with 187,000 structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. According to the Federal Highway Administration, a minimum of $8.2 billion is required to improve and correct bridge conditions. In addition to these needs, we are faced with the important and challenging task of balancing the federal budget in order to preserve the health and prosperity of future generations of Americans. In order to achieve this goal and still meet our nation's infrastructure needs, our actions must be a combination of traditional as well as new and innovative means of financing. Specifically, I believe that we need to do the following: First, we need to provide for a more efficient use of resources going to improve and develop our nation's infrastructure. We need to better utilize cost-saving tools and techniques so that we can stretch our nation's public investment dollars as far as possible in this time of limited federal funds. Second, we need to raise the level of traditional resources so that states will have a larger pool of dollars, including federal dollars, available for infrastructure development. Third, we need to attract and facilitate new and innovative financing sources, such as private investment. By fostering greater private-public partnerships, we can provide additional funding resources for states and communities. Finally, we need to develop and support innovative construction and financing mechanisms, such as State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs) and the legislation we are introducing today, TIFIA. In the face of declining federal investment in infrastructure amidst tight fiscal constraints, TIFIA enables communities and states to utilize creative methods for addressing our nation's infrastructure needs. TIFIA would provide $800 million in federal credit assistance for major transportation infrastructure projects costing in excess of $100 million. The legislation provides a model in which states could use federal loans to develop large projects that have the potential to be self-supporting. Projects which would be candidates for receiving assistance under this program include: The Western Extension of the George Bush Freeway in Texas; the Broken Arrow Expressway in Oklahoma; the widening of US Highway 219 in New York; the Interstate 15 rebuilding project in Utah; the Border Infrastructure project in Southern California; and the Florida High Speed Rail. In my state of Florida, the state's Department of Transportation is proposing the Florida High Speed Rail project, which would connect the major metropolitan areas of Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, and be the first true high speed rail line in our nation. Japan and nations in Europe have already made major progress in high speed rail transportation--but this progress has been contingent on support from their national governments. TIFIA could provide important credit support for such projects of national significance. Creative financing for infrastructure development is crucial as we enter the 21st century and are confronted with the extensive needs which can only be addressed through new and visionary approaches. In this Congress, we are scheduled to reauthorize both the Clean Water Act and ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which governs our nation's highway system--two major infrastructure bills which address pressing needs that affect the daily lives of citizens nationwide. As we focus on these two major bills, it is my hope that we will take steps to improve the state of our nation's public works system in a substantial and effective manner. TIFIA should be used as one model for taking these steps using a creative private-public financing approach. In fact, it is my hope that this legislation will be incorporated into ISTEA. We should create new partnerships which will help us to meet current and future needs while acknowledging the limited resources available to us in this fiscal environment. If we are to rebuild our nation's infrastructure, and lay the groundwork for the next generation of transportation infrastructure, we will need to develop innovative financing programs such as TIFIA. It is my hope that after we complete the Highway Program bill--with the inclusion of TIFIA as an innovative financing title--we will develop similar mechanisms for addressing the financing requirements of other major public works needs such as clean water systems and perhaps even school construction. We should heed the wisdom found in the words of Daniel Burnham, a prominent architect who served as chairman of a commission charged with redeveloping the District of Columbia, ``Think no small ideas. Small ideas have no magic to stir men's minds.'' Let us use this bill as the starting point from which to make a serious and substantial dent in our national development needs. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his leadership in this area and look forward to working closely with him as we work to pass this bill and reauthorize the Highway Program.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Rhode Island--the distinguished chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee--in the introduction of an initiative to help address our nation's infrastructure needs. Our initiative aims to harness the resources and energies of the public and the private sectors, and have them work in concert to ensure that a 21st century America has a modern system of roads, highways, and other critical public works assets. We are calling this new partnership the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1997-- TIFIA. Mr. President, the numbers paint a stark and disturbing picture of the state of our nation's infrastructure. A survey of our nation's community water system estimated that a minimum of $138.4 billion are needed over a 20 year period for the purposes of installing, upgrading, or replacing water mains, pipes, and processing facilities. Houston Mayor Bob Lanier, Chairman of the Rebuild America Coalition, reports that ``57 percent of highway pavement in all but a handful of states is in poor or mediocre condition; in some of the most populous regions, the figure is as high as 70%.'' The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that our nation must invest an additional $33 billion in surface transportation in order to stay ahead of future growth, congestion, and development. We are also faced with 187,000 structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. According to the Federal Highway Administration, a minimum of $8.2 billion is required to improve and correct bridge conditions. In addition to these needs, we are faced with the important and challenging task of balancing the federal budget in order to preserve the health and prosperity of future generations of Americans. In order to achieve this goal and still meet our nation's infrastructure needs, our actions must be a combination of traditional as well as new and innovative means of financing. Specifically, I believe that we need to do the following: First, we need to provide for a more efficient use of resources going to improve and develop our nation's infrastructure. We need to better utilize cost-saving tools and techniques so that we can stretch our nation's public investment dollars as far as possible in this time of limited federal funds. Second, we need to raise the level of traditional resources so that states will have a larger pool of dollars, including federal dollars, available for infrastructure development. Third, we need to attract and facilitate new and innovative financing sources, such as private investment. By fostering greater private-public partnerships, we can provide additional funding resources for states and communities. Finally, we need to develop and support innovative construction and financing mechanisms, such as State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs) and the legislation we are introducing today, TIFIA. In the face of declining federal investment in infrastructure amidst tight fiscal constraints, TIFIA enables communities and states to utilize creative methods for addressing our nation's infrastructure needs. TIFIA would provide $800 million in federal credit assistance for major transportation infrastructure projects costing in excess of $100 million. The legislation provides a model in which states could use federal loans to develop large projects that have the potential to be self-supporting. Projects which would be candidates for receiving assistance under this program include: The Western Extension of the George Bush Freeway in Texas; the Broken Arrow Expressway in Oklahoma; the widening of US Highway 219 in New York; the Interstate 15 rebuilding project in Utah; the Border Infrastructure project in Southern California; and the Florida High Speed Rail. In my state of Florida, the state's Department of Transportation is proposing the Florida High Speed Rail project, which would connect the major metropolitan areas of Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, and be the first true high speed rail line in our nation. Japan and nations in Europe have already made major progress in high speed rail transportation--but this progress has been contingent on support from their national governments. TIFIA could provide important credit support for such projects of national significance. Creative financing for infrastructure development is crucial as we enter the 21st century and are confronted with the extensive needs which can only be addressed through new and visionary approaches. In this Congress, we are scheduled to reauthorize both the Clean Water Act and ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which governs our nation's highway system--two major infrastructure bills which address pressing needs that affect the daily lives of citizens nationwide. As we focus on these two major bills, it is my hope that we will take steps to improve the state of our nation's public works system in a substantial and effective manner. TIFIA should be used as one model for taking these steps using a creative private-public financing approach. In fact, it is my hope that this legislation will be incorporated into ISTEA. We should create new partnerships which will help us to meet current and future needs while acknowledging the limited resources available to us in this fiscal environment. If we are to rebuild our nation's infrastructure, and lay the groundwork for the next generation of transportation infrastructure, we will need to develop innovative financing programs such as TIFIA. It is my hope that after we complete the Highway Program bill--with the inclusion of TIFIA as an innovative financing title--we will develop similar mechanisms for addressing the financing requirements of other major public works needs such as clean water systems and perhaps even school construction. We should heed the wisdom found in the words of Daniel Burnham, a prominent architect who served as chairman of a commission charged with redeveloping the District of Columbia, ``Think no small ideas. Small ideas have no magic to stir men's minds.'' Let us use this bill as the starting point from which to make a serious and substantial dent in our national development needs. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his leadership in this area and look forward to working closely with him as we work to pass this bill and reauthorize the Highway Program.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, although none of us received all of what we wanted in this budget deal, I rise today not to point out its deficiencies. Rather, I want to highlight the key strength of this agreement--It makes Medicare and Medicaid smarter. It is smart to root out fraud and abuse; it is smart to permit competition; and it is smart to promote preventive health care. Cracking down on those who abuse the system is smart. Paying less for more goods and services is smart. And preventing diseases is smart. My colleagues and I are here today not to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Nor are we here to preserve the status quo. We are here to make these programs smarter--More efficient, more equitable, and more solvent. We were faced with the politically unenviable task for paring Medicare by $115 billion and Medicaid by $23 billion to accomplish the overarching goal of this legislation--a balanced budget by the year 2002. Both health care providers and senior citizens will share in the burden of meeting this goal. Mr. President, before we ask providers and senior citizens to sacrifice, we should feel confident that this budget makes inroads into cutting fraud and abuse out of the program. Just yesterday, my esteemed colleague, Senator Harkin, discussed some of our mutual concerns in this area. Senator Harkin and I have long been champions of anti-fraud measures and pro-competitive measures, sometimes to the consternation of health care suppliers and providers. Senator Harkin was right yesterday when he spoke strongly about Medicare's need to begin negotiating for the best deal on supplies and equipment, like other Federal agencies have done. It makes no sense that Medicare--the largest single purchaser of health care services in the country--has to follow a price list set out in seven pages of statute rather than relying on competition. Our efforts in this area have been bipartisan. Just last week in the Senate Finance Committee, I, along with Senator Nickles, sponsored an amendment to give the Health Care Financing Administration the authority to institute competitive bidding for part B services. My colleagues on the Committee stood with me as we unanimously adopted this proposal. It is my sincere hope that my House colleagues will follow suit. Implementation of competitive bidding is one way in which Congress can show that we have finally gotten serious about preserving the integrity of Medicare. Another way is to begin a serious crackdown on fraud in not only Medicare, but Medicaid. Congress simply cannot be taken seriously when it asks for sacrifice if we are not willing to push as hard as we can to prevent people from ripping off the system. Let me give you some brief examples of the rampant problems we face in this area: In 1993, in my home town of Miami Lakes, FL, the Office of the Inspector General reviewed 100 claims for Medicare reimbursement by a home health agency. About out-fourth of these claims did not meet Medicare guidelines in that they either were unnecessary, not reasonable, or not provided at all. The home health agency made $8.5 million in claims, $1.2 million did not meet the reimbursement guidelines. Two years ago, I spend a day working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Florida. There I learned that it is easier to get a provider number under Medicare than it is to get a Visa card. It is easier to get a blank check signed by Uncle Sam than it is to get a household credit card. Mr. President, we cannot repair the Medicare Program without first cracking down on fraud and abuse. Those who play by the rules should not have to suffer at the hands of cheats and swindlers, and this Congress should put an end to the conditions in which cheats and swindlers thrive. I would like to thank Chairman Roth for including many of the Medicare anti-fraud proposals contained in bipartisan legislation I introduced with Senator Mack and Senator Baucus last month, including mandating that providers post a $50,000 surety bond to participate in the Medicare program. While a $50,000 bond is relatively inexpensive to post for scrupulous contractors, at a cost of about $500, the requirement has achieved tremendous results in my State. Since implementation of the requirement, the ``fly-by-night'' providers have scattered like so many roaches when the lights are turned on. Durable Medical Equipment Suppliers have dropped by 62 percent, from 4,146 to 1,565; home health agencies have decreased by 41 percent, from 738 to 441; providers of transportation services have disenrolled from the State's Medicaid program in droves--from 1,759 to 742, a drop of 58 percent. Fewer providers bilking the State's Medicaid Program is projected to save over $192 million over the next 2 years in Florida. Mr. President, we have expanded the surety bond requirement not only to Medicare in this bill--but the Finance Committee also adopted my amendment to expand this requirement to Medicaid. This is just one of the many anti-fraud provisions included in this budget. I want to reiterate my thanks to Chairman Roth for his willingness to take a tough stance to ensure that Medicare and the State Medicaid Programs are run efficiently, without the graft we have seen overrun the programs in recent years. Finally, Mr. President, we must do as much as we possibly can to ensure that our seniors receive preventive care--``health care'' not ``sick care.'' In the long run, we stand to save billions of dollars by providing early, regular, and preventive medical care, as opposed to acute, reactive, emergency care. It is both fiscally and physically prudent to prevent sickness before the fact and not after. We can start by covering colon cancer screenings under Medicare. We can save millions of dollars--and millions of lives--by detecting and treating this cancer in its early stages. Colon cancer is the second most frequent cancer killer in America, causing 55,000 deaths each year. But while it is estimated that screening and early detection and intervention could eliminate up to 90 percent of these deaths, Medicare does not currently pay for these preventive measures. Colon cancer screenings cost only $125-$300 apiece, and patients diagnosed through early detection have a 90 percent chance of survival. But if a patient isn't diagnosed until symptoms develop, the chance of survival drops to a mere 8 percent. Care for treatment in such cases can cost up to $100,000. The cost of not covering colon cancer screenings--in lives and in dollars--is unacceptable. It is also imperative that we eliminate co-payments for mammography. According to a 1995 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, women in the Medicare Program who have to pay some of the cost of mammography are far less likely to actually undergo the procedure. Only 14 percent of those women who had to make some kind of cash payment actually had a mammogram. In contrast, among women who had some kind of insurance to supplement their Medicare benefits, 43 percent had mammograms. Lack of supplemental coverage should not be a barrier to necessary and ultimately cost-saving medical treatment. Mammography should not be a luxury. It is a necessity. Mr. President, another necessary preventive measure is Bone Mass Measurement, the procedure which detects Osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a debilitating bone disease which afflicts 28 million Americans and causes 50,000 deaths each year. Eighty percent of its victims are women. Osteoporosis fracture patients cost Medicare $13.8 billion a year. This cost is projected to reach $60 billion by the year 2020 and $240 billion by the year 2040 if medical research has not discovered an effective treatment. We can curb these skyrocketing costs by providing Medicare coverage of bone mass measurement. Because we now have access to drugs which can slow the rate of bone loss, early detection is our best weapon in the fight against Osteoporosis. It is only through early detection that we can thwart the progress of the disease and initiate preventive efforts to stop further loss of bone mass. In order to ensure that we detect bone loss early, we need to ensure that older women have coverage for bone mass tests. Unfortunately, coverage of bone mass measurement is inconsistent from state to state. Qualifications for testing, and the frequency of testing, differ from carrier to carrier and region to region. The current system is confusing and inequitable. Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Coverage should be covered uniformly in all states. Diabetes, with its tremendous financial and human toll, also deserves greater protection under Medicare. By providing for Medicare coverage of blood glucose monitoring strips and outpatient self-management training services, we can expect to see significant reductions in complications and expensive treatments. Coverage of test strips and self-management training services will allow people with diabetes to care for their own individual needs. In so doing, they can better prevent complications such as blindness, kidney failure and heart disease. Mr. President, this budget agreement is smart. It cracks down on fraud and abuse. It makes medical goods and services cheaper. And it promotes preventive health, saving millions of lives and billions of dollars. These are necessary and long overdue measures, and I thank my colleagues who have supported them.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague Senator Mack in introducing the Florida Coast Protection Act today. It represents the next step in the State of Florida's long battle to preserve our beautiful coastal and marine ecosystem. Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because of the threat it presents to the State's greatest natural and economic resource: our coastal environment. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife draw millions of tourists each year from around the globe, supporting our State's largest industry. Tourism supports, directly or indirectly, millions of jobs all across Florida, and the industry generates billions of dollars every year. The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas in the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove forests and seagrass beds, provide an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries because they support the nurseries for the most commercially harvested fish. Perhaps the most environmentally delicate regions in the gulf, estuaries could be damaged beyond repair by a relatively small oil spill. Over the years, we have met with some success in our effort to protect Florida's OCS. In 1995, the lawsuit surrounding the cancellation of the leases around the Florida Keys was settled, removing the immediate threat of oil and gas drilling from what is an extremely sensitive area. While I believe strongly that a long-term strategy is needed for the entire Florida coastline, the legislation we are introducing today focuses on a more near-term goal: to cancel six leases in an area 17 miles off the coast from Pensacola. The bill provides a mechanism for leaseholders to seek compensation under section 5 of the OCS Lands Act. Both Senator Mack and I believe the leaseholders have the absolute right to just compensation from the Federal Government in order to recover their investment. As the member of the Florida delegation who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--the committee with jurisdiction over this issue--I anticipate a difficult and precarious road to enactment. But the Florida delegation as a whole has no other choice than to pursue with all our combined abilities the goal we envision: to take another major step toward ensuring the wellbeing of the Outer Continental Shelf offshore the State of Florida. In addition to introducing this legislation today, Senator Mack and I intend to write to Chairman Frank Murkowski of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to request a hearing on this bill as soon as possible. Floridians will have our very best effort to make the Florida Coast Protection Act Federal law.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague Senator Mack in introducing the Florida Coast Protection Act today. It represents the next step in the State of Florida's long battle to preserve our beautiful coastal and marine ecosystem. Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because of the threat it presents to the State's greatest natural and economic resource: our coastal environment. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife draw millions of tourists each year from around the globe, supporting our State's largest industry. Tourism supports, directly or indirectly, millions of jobs all across Florida, and the industry generates billions of dollars every year. The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas in the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove forests and seagrass beds, provide an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing industry relies on these estuaries because they support the nurseries for the most commercially harvested fish. Perhaps the most environmentally delicate regions in the gulf, estuaries could be damaged beyond repair by a relatively small oil spill. Over the years, we have met with some success in our effort to protect Florida's OCS. In 1995, the lawsuit surrounding the cancellation of the leases around the Florida Keys was settled, removing the immediate threat of oil and gas drilling from what is an extremely sensitive area. While I believe strongly that a long-term strategy is needed for the entire Florida coastline, the legislation we are introducing today focuses on a more near-term goal: to cancel six leases in an area 17 miles off the coast from Pensacola. The bill provides a mechanism for leaseholders to seek compensation under section 5 of the OCS Lands Act. Both Senator Mack and I believe the leaseholders have the absolute right to just compensation from the Federal Government in order to recover their investment. As the member of the Florida delegation who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--the committee with jurisdiction over this issue--I anticipate a difficult and precarious road to enactment. But the Florida delegation as a whole has no other choice than to pursue with all our combined abilities the goal we envision: to take another major step toward ensuring the wellbeing of the Outer Continental Shelf offshore the State of Florida. In addition to introducing this legislation today, Senator Mack and I intend to write to Chairman Frank Murkowski of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to request a hearing on this bill as soon as possible. Floridians will have our very best effort to make the Florida Coast Protection Act Federal law.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I'm happy to have this opportunity today to introduce legislation to amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to designate the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness and to amend the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 to designate the Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center. Ms. Douglas and Mr. Coe led the charge to establish Everglades National Park and raise public awareness to restore its vitality. I think most Americans know that Everglades National Park preserves the subtropical region at the southern tip of Florida. But what most people don't realize is that the park has been nominated by the United States and accepted by the world community as a world heritage site, a wetland of international significance, and a biosphere reserve in recognition of its international significance. It is the only site in the Nation that has received all three designations, which serves to underscore the superlative qualities of the park on a global scale. Everglades National Park is well known for its diverse and unique wildlife, including alligators and crocodiles, eagles, manatees, and various fish species. The park has 13 species of endangered birds. It has open prairies and extensive saltwater areas with sawgrass marshes, mangroves, and shallow bays. Its 1.3 million acres of wilderness make it the largest subtropical wilderness in the continental United States. In 1926 and again in 1928, Senator Park Trammel of Florida introduced legislation calling for an examination of the Everglades to determine if a portion could qualify as a national park. The National Park Service had made some preliminary inquiries into the matter when Ernest Francis Coe came forward to champion the idea of creating a national park in southern Florida. Coe came to Coconut Grove from New England in 1925 and was overwhelmed with the natural beauty and wildlife of the Cape Sable and Ten Thousand Islands area. He wanted to find some way to protect the bird rookeries and hammocks, and the establishment of a national park seemed like an ideal solution. Mr. Coe became the central leader in the campaign to create Everglades National Park. In 1928, he organized the Tropic Everglades National Park Association and is widely regarded as the Father of Everglades National Park. As a landscape architect, Mr. Coe's vision for the park recognized the need to protect south Florida's diverse wildlife and their habitats for future generations. His leadership, selfless devotion, and commitment to achieving this vision culminated in the authorization of the park by Congress in 1934 and its subsequent dedication by President Truman in 1947. While it is not required by law that Congress name park visitor centers, this legislation will demonstrate Congress' support for honoring Mr. Coe's legacy. Because of his central role in the establishment of Everglades National Park, it is also a fitting tribute that park visitors be greeted by the congressionally designated Coe Center. In 1947, Marjory Stoneman Douglas published her landmark book, ``The Everglades: River of Grass,'' which greatly increased interest in and concern for the Everglades. Ms. Douglas, who celebrated her 107th birthday on April 6, symbolizes the struggle to save the Everglades. Her pioneering work was the first to highlight the plight of the Everglades and ultimately served to awaken public interest in restoring its health. Ms. Douglas has dedicated her life to the defense of the Everglades through her extraordinary personal effort and by inspiring countless others to take action. Recognizing these accomplishments, in 1992 President Clinton awarded her to the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award. Ms. Douglas has consistently stated her wish to have Ernest Coe's efforts suitably commemorated at the park. She has expressed through her associates Dr. Sharon T. Richardson her delight with the idea of designating the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness area. Dr. Richardson has added her opinion that, ``Nothing could mark her life more suitably than to give her name to this resplendent wilderness.'' I can only echo that sentiment and add that nothing could be more appropriate during this 50th anniversary year of Everglades National Park, than the commemoration of these two legends as proposed in this bill. To quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas' book ``River of Grass:'' There are no other Everglades in the World. They are, they have always been, one of the unique regions of the earth, remote, never wholly known. Nothing anywhere else is like them: their vast glittering openness, wider than the enormous visible round of the horizon, the racing free saltness and sweetness of their massive winds, under the dazzling blue heights of space. They are unique also in the simplicity, the diversity, the related harmony of the forms of life they enclose. The miracle of the light pours over the green and brown expanse of saw grass and of water, shining and slow-moving below, the grass and water that is the meaning and the central fact of the Everglades of Florida. It is a river of grass. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I'm happy to have this opportunity today to introduce legislation to amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to designate the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness and to amend the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 to designate the Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center. Ms. Douglas and Mr. Coe led the charge to establish Everglades National Park and raise public awareness to restore its vitality. I think most Americans know that Everglades National Park preserves the subtropical region at the southern tip of Florida. But what most people don't realize is that the park has been nominated by the United States and accepted by the world community as a world heritage site, a wetland of international significance, and a biosphere reserve in recognition of its international significance. It is the only site in the Nation that has received all three designations, which serves to underscore the superlative qualities of the park on a global scale. Everglades National Park is well known for its diverse and unique wildlife, including alligators and crocodiles, eagles, manatees, and various fish species. The park has 13 species of endangered birds. It has open prairies and extensive saltwater areas with sawgrass marshes, mangroves, and shallow bays. Its 1.3 million acres of wilderness make it the largest subtropical wilderness in the continental United States. In 1926 and again in 1928, Senator Park Trammel of Florida introduced legislation calling for an examination of the Everglades to determine if a portion could qualify as a national park. The National Park Service had made some preliminary inquiries into the matter when Ernest Francis Coe came forward to champion the idea of creating a national park in southern Florida. Coe came to Coconut Grove from New England in 1925 and was overwhelmed with the natural beauty and wildlife of the Cape Sable and Ten Thousand Islands area. He wanted to find some way to protect the bird rookeries and hammocks, and the establishment of a national park seemed like an ideal solution. Mr. Coe became the central leader in the campaign to create Everglades National Park. In 1928, he organized the Tropic Everglades National Park Association and is widely regarded as the Father of Everglades National Park. As a landscape architect, Mr. Coe's vision for the park recognized the need to protect south Florida's diverse wildlife and their habitats for future generations. His leadership, selfless devotion, and commitment to achieving this vision culminated in the authorization of the park by Congress in 1934 and its subsequent dedication by President Truman in 1947. While it is not required by law that Congress name park visitor centers, this legislation will demonstrate Congress' support for honoring Mr. Coe's legacy. Because of his central role in the establishment of Everglades National Park, it is also a fitting tribute that park visitors be greeted by the congressionally designated Coe Center. In 1947, Marjory Stoneman Douglas published her landmark book, ``The Everglades: River of Grass,'' which greatly increased interest in and concern for the Everglades. Ms. Douglas, who celebrated her 107th birthday on April 6, symbolizes the struggle to save the Everglades. Her pioneering work was the first to highlight the plight of the Everglades and ultimately served to awaken public interest in restoring its health. Ms. Douglas has dedicated her life to the defense of the Everglades through her extraordinary personal effort and by inspiring countless others to take action. Recognizing these accomplishments, in 1992 President Clinton awarded her to the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award. Ms. Douglas has consistently stated her wish to have Ernest Coe's efforts suitably commemorated at the park. She has expressed through her associates Dr. Sharon T. Richardson her delight with the idea of designating the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness area. Dr. Richardson has added her opinion that, ``Nothing could mark her life more suitably than to give her name to this resplendent wilderness.'' I can only echo that sentiment and add that nothing could be more appropriate during this 50th anniversary year of Everglades National Park, than the commemoration of these two legends as proposed in this bill. To quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas' book ``River of Grass:'' There are no other Everglades in the World. They are, they have always been, one of the unique regions of the earth, remote, never wholly known. Nothing anywhere else is like them: their vast glittering openness, wider than the enormous visible round of the horizon, the racing free saltness and sweetness of their massive winds, under the dazzling blue heights of space. They are unique also in the simplicity, the diversity, the related harmony of the forms of life they enclose. The miracle of the light pours over the green and brown expanse of saw grass and of water, shining and slow-moving below, the grass and water that is the meaning and the central fact of the Everglades of Florida. It is a river of grass. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, along with both Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee to seek a restoration of job creation and economic growth incentives for U.S. businesses in Puerto Rico. Last year's tax legislation eliminated the longstanding incentive that applied in Puerto Rico: section 936. Efforts were made to replace section 936 with a new wage credit provision in section 30A, but even that provision is scheduled to expire. The legislation enacted did not provide for any tax benefits for new companies locating in Puerto Rico or existing companies expanding their operation on the island. The legislation we introduce today will make permanent wage credit benefits of section 30A to companies seeking to locate or expand their activities in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico's economy is directly related to the economies of Florida and many other States. Most of the materials and many services used by manufacturing facilities in Puerto Rico are supplied from the States. Puerto Rico is also the center of economic activity for the entire strategic Caribbean region. Any downturn in the economy of Puerto Rico would have serious negative implications for the States that do significant business with the island as well as for the Caribbean Basin as a whole. The bill we introduce today would tie tax benefits directly to wages paid and investment made in Puerto Rico. It is targeted, efficient, and has the broad bipartisan support of the public and private sectors in Puerto Rico. It is a provision that we should act on now. We should not await a significant downturn in the Puerto Rico economy before taking action. It is clearly desirable and necessary to act this year if we are to increase economic conditions in Puerto Rico to levels consistent with those we should expect for all American citizens.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to join with my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, along with both Republicans and Democrats on the Finance Committee to seek a restoration of job creation and economic growth incentives for U.S. businesses in Puerto Rico. Last year's tax legislation eliminated the longstanding incentive that applied in Puerto Rico: section 936. Efforts were made to replace section 936 with a new wage credit provision in section 30A, but even that provision is scheduled to expire. The legislation enacted did not provide for any tax benefits for new companies locating in Puerto Rico or existing companies expanding their operation on the island. The legislation we introduce today will make permanent wage credit benefits of section 30A to companies seeking to locate or expand their activities in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico's economy is directly related to the economies of Florida and many other States. Most of the materials and many services used by manufacturing facilities in Puerto Rico are supplied from the States. Puerto Rico is also the center of economic activity for the entire strategic Caribbean region. Any downturn in the economy of Puerto Rico would have serious negative implications for the States that do significant business with the island as well as for the Caribbean Basin as a whole. The bill we introduce today would tie tax benefits directly to wages paid and investment made in Puerto Rico. It is targeted, efficient, and has the broad bipartisan support of the public and private sectors in Puerto Rico. It is a provision that we should act on now. We should not await a significant downturn in the Puerto Rico economy before taking action. It is clearly desirable and necessary to act this year if we are to increase economic conditions in Puerto Rico to levels consistent with those we should expect for all American citizens.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in conjunction with Senator McCain and 16 of our colleagues to reauthorize the Area Health Education Center Program under title VII of the Public Health Service Act. Unfortunately, the law of supply and demand does not always operate to the benefit of rural Americans or the working poor in the health care marketplace. Whether individuals live three counties away from the nearest full-service clinic or just across town, often their access to primary and preventive care is limited. While recent attention has focused on controlling run-away health care costs, the problem is not only one of cost, but also one of allocation. We need to allocate both our abundant supply of health professionals and the highly concentrated resources of our world class academic health centers to individuals who are underserved in the health care marketplace. Since its inception in 1973, one of the most effective means of redistributing and reallocating manpower has been the Federal and State-funded Area Health Education Centers Program [AHEC]. AHEC's serve as bridges between medical schools and our Nation's underserved rural and inner-city communities, recruiting and training primary care providers and health professionals, and providing continuing education to existing providers. Nine years ago, the AHEC Program was expanded to include the Health Education Training Centers Program [HETC], which are designed to address the persistent unmet health care needs of population groups such as migrants, minorities, and others. As Governor of Florida, I became aware of the accomplishments of AHEC's in addressing the maldistribution of health professionals in underserved areas of other southern States such as North Carolina and helped catalyze the initial interest for the development of AHEC's in my State. Since then, I have been pleased to see AHEC's and more recently HETC's grow and flourish throughout Florida and throughout the country. Based at each of the State's medical schools, Florida's four AHEC programs now cover all 67 counties in the State. The programs and their 10 affiliated centers conduct activities that address regional and State priorities in areas such as public and school health, recruitment of health professionals to medically underserved communities, and special health needs of migrant and immigrant populations. With more than 44 AHEC programs operating in 42 States, we are finally approaching the full evolution of AHEC into a national system with an infrastructure through which to reach those communities and populations in greatest need of basic health services. In 1994, 80 of 142 allopathic and osteopathic medical schools were involved with AHEC and HETC programs nationally, and 13 percent of the Nation's total medical school enrollment obtained community-based training through the program. AHEC's effectiveness lies in this unique ability to combine the resources of academic health centers with those of medically underserved communities and in such a way that enhances the primary care training while increasing access to care. This role continues to increase in importance as States struggle to adjust to changes in medical reimbursements, limitations on welfare, and cutbacks in social services. One of the most important contributions AHEC's have made in Florida and around the Nation is in the training of health professionals in collaboration with local health education institutions, public health departments, community health centers, rural hospitals, local school systems, and volunteer organizations. As a result AHEC's have generated a great deal of academic and community support. During fiscal year 1994, 32 AHEC programs received $22 million in Federal allocations; this was matched by approximately $106 million in State and local funds. These programs have had such success in gaining local and State funds because State legislators and community leaders have witnessed the very real impact and benefits that AHEC's bring to the lives of the people in their States and communities. Despite promising health care reforms and increased enrollment in managed care networks, the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to rise. Hundreds of counties throughout the United States are still without doctors, and for many low-income families, whether they be located in the inner-city or a small, rural community, preventive dental care is considered a luxury. Because these problems have yet to be resolved, and because AHEC is needed as much today as when it was created, Senator McCain and I are sponsoring this legislation to reauthorize AHEC, as we did successfully in 1992. This reauthorization already enjoys widespread bipartisan support--a testament to the pliable nature of this program in meeting the needs of diverse communities. In their first 25 years, AHEC's around the country have repeatedly shown that the sum total of Federal and State dollars that they have been allocated has been money well spent. We would like to see this successful program extended for 5 more years. Thanks to AHEC, the face of health professions education is changing into a more community-centered enterprise that places higher priority on the everyday needs of all Americans, including those who historically have been underserved. While we have already begun to see the results of this change, many challenges lie ahead in the ongoing effort to ensure access to health care for all Americans. With the contribution of AHEC, our communities and academic health centers will have the means necessary to work together and meet those challenges. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join Senator McCain and me in supporting the reauthorization of this important program which targets health care services to our Nation's most underserved areas. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and letters of support from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in conjunction with Senator McCain and 16 of our colleagues to reauthorize the Area Health Education Center Program under title VII of the Public Health Service Act. Unfortunately, the law of supply and demand does not always operate to the benefit of rural Americans or the working poor in the health care marketplace. Whether individuals live three counties away from the nearest full-service clinic or just across town, often their access to primary and preventive care is limited. While recent attention has focused on controlling run-away health care costs, the problem is not only one of cost, but also one of allocation. We need to allocate both our abundant supply of health professionals and the highly concentrated resources of our world class academic health centers to individuals who are underserved in the health care marketplace. Since its inception in 1973, one of the most effective means of redistributing and reallocating manpower has been the Federal and State-funded Area Health Education Centers Program [AHEC]. AHEC's serve as bridges between medical schools and our Nation's underserved rural and inner-city communities, recruiting and training primary care providers and health professionals, and providing continuing education to existing providers. Nine years ago, the AHEC Program was expanded to include the Health Education Training Centers Program [HETC], which are designed to address the persistent unmet health care needs of population groups such as migrants, minorities, and others. As Governor of Florida, I became aware of the accomplishments of AHEC's in addressing the maldistribution of health professionals in underserved areas of other southern States such as North Carolina and helped catalyze the initial interest for the development of AHEC's in my State. Since then, I have been pleased to see AHEC's and more recently HETC's grow and flourish throughout Florida and throughout the country. Based at each of the State's medical schools, Florida's four AHEC programs now cover all 67 counties in the State. The programs and their 10 affiliated centers conduct activities that address regional and State priorities in areas such as public and school health, recruitment of health professionals to medically underserved communities, and special health needs of migrant and immigrant populations. With more than 44 AHEC programs operating in 42 States, we are finally approaching the full evolution of AHEC into a national system with an infrastructure through which to reach those communities and populations in greatest need of basic health services. In 1994, 80 of 142 allopathic and osteopathic medical schools were involved with AHEC and HETC programs nationally, and 13 percent of the Nation's total medical school enrollment obtained community-based training through the program. AHEC's effectiveness lies in this unique ability to combine the resources of academic health centers with those of medically underserved communities and in such a way that enhances the primary care training while increasing access to care. This role continues to increase in importance as States struggle to adjust to changes in medical reimbursements, limitations on welfare, and cutbacks in social services. One of the most important contributions AHEC's have made in Florida and around the Nation is in the training of health professionals in collaboration with local health education institutions, public health departments, community health centers, rural hospitals, local school systems, and volunteer organizations. As a result AHEC's have generated a great deal of academic and community support. During fiscal year 1994, 32 AHEC programs received $22 million in Federal allocations; this was matched by approximately $106 million in State and local funds. These programs have had such success in gaining local and State funds because State legislators and community leaders have witnessed the very real impact and benefits that AHEC's bring to the lives of the people in their States and communities. Despite promising health care reforms and increased enrollment in managed care networks, the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to rise. Hundreds of counties throughout the United States are still without doctors, and for many low-income families, whether they be located in the inner-city or a small, rural community, preventive dental care is considered a luxury. Because these problems have yet to be resolved, and because AHEC is needed as much today as when it was created, Senator McCain and I are sponsoring this legislation to reauthorize AHEC, as we did successfully in 1992. This reauthorization already enjoys widespread bipartisan support--a testament to the pliable nature of this program in meeting the needs of diverse communities. In their first 25 years, AHEC's around the country have repeatedly shown that the sum total of Federal and State dollars that they have been allocated has been money well spent. We would like to see this successful program extended for 5 more years. Thanks to AHEC, the face of health professions education is changing into a more community-centered enterprise that places higher priority on the everyday needs of all Americans, including those who historically have been underserved. While we have already begun to see the results of this change, many challenges lie ahead in the ongoing effort to ensure access to health care for all Americans. With the contribution of AHEC, our communities and academic health centers will have the means necessary to work together and meet those challenges. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join Senator McCain and me in supporting the reauthorization of this important program which targets health care services to our Nation's most underserved areas. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and letters of support from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, as I did once before in January of this year, I rise to speak about an issue which is of vital importance to this Nation, the retirement security of our people into the 21st century. Mr. President, the facts are startling. Fifty-one million working Americans are not covered by any type of retirement plan. An incredible 87 percent of workers employed by small businesses, businesses with fewer than 20 employees, have no private retirement or pension coverage. Less than 40 percent of the 33 million Americans, age 65 and older, today collect a pension. These numbers are very, very disturbing. There are three foundations for a secure retirement: Social Security, personal savings, and a pension. Each one of these foundations is eroding. Social Security is unlikely to increase. Personal savings rates are falling. Fewer of today's workers will retire with a lifetime pension. In January, I spoke and mentioned some of the reasons that pension coverage fails to reach so many workers. Some of those reasons include the fact that our work force is changing. For the most part, our pension laws have not kept pace with the changes in the American work force. Think about current workers in an era of tremendous employee mobility--you don't work an entire career for one company, as was the typical pattern for our parents and grandparents. Small business is a tremendously vital part of our economy. Yet, those very small businesses are faced with obstacles in establishing retirement plans. There has been a decline in union membership, and unionized workers are the most apt to be covered under a defined benefit retirement plan. There is a shift away from manufacturing jobs toward service and retail, and, again, pension coverage is higher in manufacturing sectors than in these new expanding areas of the American economy. Knowing that these trends will continue, it is obvious that we need to make certain that our pension laws have kept pace with the changing American work force. My goal is to ensure that each American who works hard for 30, 40 years, or more, has every opportunity for a secure and comfortable retirement. I share this goal with many of my colleagues, including Senators Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, and John Breaux, all of whom join me today in introducing this bipartisan bill. To achieve the goal that every American who works hard for a lifetime will have a secure retirement and pension, we have focused on five areas: Expanded coverage for small businesses, women's equity issues, portability, pension security and enforcement, and simplification. Those, Mr. President, are the five areas of impact for the legislation that we introduce today. I have been honored to participate with some of my colleagues' efforts to build retirement security for American workers. Senator Daschle has created a Democratic pension task force, which led to the introduction of S. 14 on the first day of this session. Senators Moseley-Braun, Murray, and Snowe have furthered the debate in helping women achieve a sound retirement, with the Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act. Senators Conrad and Hatch have focused on clarifying nondiscrimination rules for governmental plans. Senator Boxer has fought to protect pension assets from abuse in 401(k) plans. Senator Gregg's leadership has guided the Republican pension task force to introduce its pension proposal earlier this week. The attention that this issue has received in the Congress highlights its importance to the American people. I am ready to work together and find the common ground that will form the foundation for a secure retirement for millions of Americans. We will take a common bipartisan approach that will be necessary for both sides of the aisle, both employers and employees, in order to build that foundation for the future. We need to be able to offer businessowners and their workers uncumbersome portability, administrative simplicity and the confidence that their plans are secure and well funded. To be honest, when I first saw the statistics of how many people are ill prepared for retirement, I was amazed. I started asking ``Why?'' Why do we have over 50 million Americans not prepared for their retirement? I asked Floridians directly. I have spoken with large and small chambers of commerce. In my career, I have had the opportunity to spend a workday working directly with the people of our State at more than 300 businesses. I have worked side by side with small business owners, with executives, and their employees. My staff, visiting a chamber of commerce in central Florida, recalls the answer given as to why small businesses have few pension plans: ``Administrative costs and red tape.'' When I traveled to Orlando to discuss this bill, I had the arduous task of bringing along the United States Code books and current regulations dealing with pension and retirement. They are overwhelming just by their weight alone. Our Nation's small businesses need simple options. They should be focusing on what they do best--growing their businesses, growing our economy, not attempting to apply a pension law that was written 30 or more years ago for large businesses to their current circumstances. It is crucial that we make it as uncomplicated as possible for our Nation's businesses to offer their employees retirement security. We need to cut back on paperwork, eliminate obstacles to starting pension plans, streamline the complex regulations, and provide employers with the guidance and support they need to continue their valuable efforts. In the end, all of these provisions will encourage employers to offer pension plans because of the lower administrative costs and reduction of red tape. Let me mention a few specific ideas which are incorporated in this legislation. Small businesses are the most vital sector of today's economy. This is where job growth is, and all indications are where it will accelerate in the future. Yet, small businesses face many challenges in providing a secure retirement for their employees: Higher administrative costs to manage a plan; a fluctuating income stream-- some years profits are up; and sometimes they are down--and a lack of resources to keep current with changing laws and regulations. This chart demonstrates the problem. Workers in America with a retirement plan: According to the Small Business Administration, if you work for a company that employs 20 or fewer persons, your chances of having a retirement plan are 13 percent; if you work for a firm with between 21 and 100 employees, your chances are 38 percent; if you work for a firm that employs over 500 people, 72 percent of the time you will be covered by a pension and retirement program. We need to make it a wise business decision for small businessowners to establish a retirement plan for themselves and for their employees. We need to offer simple creative solutions to expand pension coverage for small businesses. Payroll deductions for individual retirement accounts is one example, Mr. President, of the kind of change which is made in this legislation. Even with every effort made for simplification, some businesses won't be able to establish a retirement plan. But even the smallest of small businesses can help their employees. Any step we take to facilitate putting money away for retirement is a step in the right direction. Payroll deductions are the easiest manner of savings. This provision will facilitate the contributions to IRAs by direct deduction from payrolls. Modification of the topheavy rules is another step that will facilitate small businesses providing retirement programs. What are topheavy rules? These are rules which were created to assure that private pension plans were not disproportionately tilted toward highly compensated individuals. These rules affect small businesses much more than large companies. Because topheavy rules are excessively cumbersome, small businesses simply don't offer retirement plans for any of their employees. Our provisions attempt to address this inequity by repealing the family aggregation rules and simplifying the definition of key employees and compensation. It is important that retirement plans benefit all employees--but, if we can modify these rules to help small family businesses prepare for retirement, millions of Americans would be better off in their retirement years. Another area of special concern, Mr. President, in this legislation is the impact that old pension and retirement policies have on women. We know that women are coming into the work force in much larger numbers than they did in previous generations. We know that women are the most mobile component of our work force. They change jobs more frequently. They move in and out of the work force as family and other responsibilities dictate. Women tend, during their career, to care for children and aging parents, which makes it difficult for them to stay in one job long enough to secure the benefits that require long periods of employment. Statistics show that women will live longer in retirement than men. Therefore, they need more, not less, financial resources for their retirement years. Historically during a career, women will earn less than men, thus making it more difficult for them to save for retirement. The provisions that we include in our women and family equity section help both women and men, but they disproportionately help women. Some of the specific concerns women face during their working careers: Time away from work for child care, lower salaries, or divorce. This section can provide a growing sector of our working population a fair chance at a productive and secure retirement. It provides for faster vesting of employers' matching contribution. Under current law, employers may require up to 5 years of service before an employee is entitled to the employer's matching contribution to the business' defined contribution plan. Twenty percent of our work force age 45 to 64 have been in their current jobs less than 4 years. That is a huge sector of the work force who are most likely not to stay long enough to vest in their retirement plan. Women are a disproportionate share of that huge portion of the work force. By reducing the vesting period from 5 years to 3 years, we more accurately reflect the changes in our work force. Spousal IRA is another example of a provision in the current law which particularly adversely affects women. In an American culture where we see more and more two-career couples, we need to encourage each of them to save in every way possible. Under current law, if one spouse is participating in a retirement program at his or her job, no matter how small, the other spouse is precluded from a tax deductible individual retirement account. Senators Roth and Breaux have worked long and hard on this issue, and we have included the results of their efforts in this proposal. It eliminates one barrier that has stood in the way of many two-career families providing for two individuals' pension and retirement security. Individual retirement accounts have proven to be one of the most effective ways to plan for future financial security. Working couples should be encouraged to plan and save through this option. We want to eliminate this barrier to save. Another aspect that particularly affects women is the fact that they are subject to periodic discontinuity in their employment careers. As the father of four daughters and eight grandchildren, I know all the joy a child can bring a family and how much planning is needed for the new parents to assure that they and their children can provide for their future years. Many employees today are taking unpaid leave to spend a few weeks or months with a newborn or a newly adopted child. But by doing so, they may be taking a step away from their own retirement security by not being able to make their usual contributions to their retirement plan. Our provision allows them to do so when they return to the job. This proposal is modeled after legislation that Congress adopted after the gulf war in which returning veterans were allowed to make a contribution to their retirement programs to cover the period that they were away from their job serving their Nation. We will help our Nation's new parents in the same way that we helped returning veterans. Saving for retirement is not an easy task. It takes dedication month after month. Under this provision, we will make certain that the good savings habits that parents have started can be sustained even if they take time away from work to be with a newborn child. Another factor that peculiarly affects women is the issue of portability--the ability to move retirement benefits from one job to the next. Just looking at some of the current statistics, we know that the average American worker over the course of a 40-year career will have seven different employers. The average worker in a 40-year career will have seven different employers. Our pension laws were written in an era that didn't anticipate this modern mobility of the work force. Americans' retirement dreams can be dimmed by the consequences of moving from job to job. They will have less retirement assets. Often there is no choice but to make a job change. A spouse gets transferred to another city to keep the family together; the other spouse moves as well. We in Congress have been in favor of keeping families together. Let's make certain that the family is not hurt in later years by a difficult retirement, a constrained retirement, because of that very mobility. An employee can be downsized. Companies can go bankrupt. Hard-working recent college graduates can move up the career leader. Each of these involve job changes. Mr. President, one of the things that has distinguished the American economy from many other industrialized nations has been this very factor of our mobile work force, that people were willing to move where there were new opportunities, where the changes in the economy dictate that it was to their advantage as well as to the Nation's advantage for people to move from one job to the other. We shouldn't constrain that by imposing a penalty on their long-term retirement security because they have done what is in their interest and what is in the interest of our dynamic economy. When such moves occur, we need to mobilize the pension money, to put wheels under it, to make it as portable as the people who will benefit by those retirement savings. Providing employees with a vehicle to take their pension money with them during their working careers will allow the accrual of larger pensions making it easier on the worker and the employers to keep track of retirement funds. How can we do this? We can do it through several proposals which are incorporated in the bill that I introduce today. Similar defined contribution plans should be able to roll over one into the other. Money in a retirement stream should be kept there until retirement. When you leave one job for another, your retirement savings should be able to travel with you. Mr. President, today American workers have their retirement plans in many different types of specific forms. Well known is the 401(k) plan; also, plans for workers who are employed by nonprofit organizations, workers who are employed by the Government, individual retirement accounts. What we provide in our legislation is that, if a worker moves, for instance, from a Government employment to a private employment, they would be able to carry with them their accumulated retirement benefits from their previous plan into their new employment. This will require the consent of both the employees and the new employer to do so. But the law will no longer erect arbitrary barriers against such transition of employment benefits. All of these plans have their own specific but generally relatively marginal differences. But they all have one common purpose--that is, allowing workers to save for retirement. This ability to move plans as employment history requires a movement will facilitate achieving that objective. Mr. President, we also need to encourage businesses to allow their employees to do this. We will eliminate the fear among businesses that by accepting a new employee's previous retirement assets, the business risks the disqualification of its own plan. Once a pension plan is in place, Congress needs to assure that the assets are invested wisely and securely. America's workers are depending on the assets that are accumulating in retirement plans. Our laws protecting pension assets need to give them the confidence that they need to rely on these plans in retirement. There should be stronger penalties for fraud and embezzlement of plans. We say clearly to the pension fund managers and administrators: If you are guilty of fraud or embezzlement, then your own pension will be at risk. Workers who are hurt by your action will be compensated out of your pension. America's pension fund managers have a sacred trust to millions of employees who will depend on their expertise and skills for a sound retirement. If that trust is broken, harsh sanctions are in order for the guilty party, or managers. There should be greater access to information by employees as to what is the status of their pension retirement fund. Pension security will be enhanced by an educated work force. Employees with the necessary information will be able to watch over their own retirement assets. A vital aspect of retirement security is keeping pension participants fully informed of what they have in their plans and what to expect when they retire. Senator Grassley is to be commended for his efforts in this area, making sure that employees receive accurate information and properly computed pensions. To help employees plan for their retirement, we propose annual benefit statements for all defined contributions plans and every 3 years for defined benefits plans. These statements will help all employees plan carefully and would also help to reduce pension miscalculations. We are acting in an anticipatory way to cut off what we think could be a future threat to retirement security. Once we have made every effort to keep our Nation's pension assets protected from fraud and abuse, let us protect these assets from ourselves. There is already a consumer credit crisis in this country. Millions of American families are overextended, carrying huge balances on multiple credit cards month to month. Our measure will prohibit 401(k) or similar retirement assets from being tied to credit cards. If these credit cards were allowed, we would be putting Americans on the slippery slope, spending retirement assets before retiring. Mr. President, I mentioned that one of our principal areas of concern is simplification, to make it easier for all the participants in the retirement security process to know, to be in compliance with the standards and therefore to be encouraged to provide more adequately for their retirement. Summary plan descriptions and a summary of major modifications will now be substituted for the detailed reporting requirements which are currently required. One less report will be filed. The Department of Labor probably has millions of these current detailed reports stockpiled. Under our proposal, the Labor Department retains the right to request one of these reports from a company, but for simplification's sake let us not require the reports to be sent in unless they are actually needed. We are also sanctioning the use of electronic communications. Our pension laws should get on the information highway. We have asked the Department of the Treasury to look to the use of e-mail and modern technology in administering pension plans. It is common sense. It is simpler to use. It is less expensive. It will encourage particularly small businesses to provide retirement plans. Mr. President, common sense is the foundation of this proposal, to make the punishment for failure to comply with the standards fit the crime. Under current law, the IRS can threaten to disqualify an entire pension plan for inadvertent errors. We are proposing intermediate sanctions, sanctions which are proportionate to the error that has been committed. The IRS is to be commended for several programs they have initiated to work with businesses in this area. We want to codify elements of those plans that are already in practice. As an example, a plan should not be disqualified if a company finds and fixes an error prior to an Internal Revenue Service audit. Rank-and-file employees will not be taxed even if a plan is disqualified. Senators Hatch and Conrad have led the effort to permanently exclude governmental plans from nondiscriminatory rules. Congress placed a temporary moratorium on those rules in 1977. Since then, we have addressed this issue every few years. After two decades, common sense says let us make this permanent. Mr. President, preparing this generation of workers for retirement is, in my view, almost an issue of national security. We know that beginning early in the 21st century there will be a surge of Americans who will reach retirement age. How well prepared those millions of Americans are for the years after retirement will have a significant impact on the economic, personal, and national security of this Nation. A strong economic future depends upon this. Mr. President, you represent a State with significant numbers of persons who have chosen to live there in retirement. That is also true of my State of Florida. Every time I go home to my State, I see the result of persons who have conscientiously planned for their retirement--families that have worked hard, invested wisely, saved diligently, and are now enjoying the benefits of retirement in our State. Collectively, we Americans could learn a lot from this generation. I want to provide this generation with every possible opportunity to have the same lifestyle as our parents are currently enjoying. To achieve this goal, we need businesses to work together with their employees. We need Republicans and Democrats to collaborate in a bipartisan solution to those inhibitions which are currently resulting in over 50 million Americans not having pension retirement plans. We need to work together to find the common ground and to take steps now on the items upon which we agree. Every time we can make pensions more portable, simpler, fairer to women, more attractive to small businesses, more secure, we are helping every American reach their retirement goal. We are making a significant contribution to a better America.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Delia Lasanta, John Stone, and Hassan Tyler be admitted to the floor for the duration of my speech.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have talked about the principles that are represented by our action in legislation. Let me talk about an important principle. That is the principle that when we are dealing with lives and we are dealing with the destruction and the aftermath of a catastrophe, it is not the time to inject political ideology on unrelated subjects. I suggest that has been the policy of this Senate, that has been the policy of this Federal Government. Let me just give two examples of that policy. On September 21, 1989, Hurricane Hugo slammed into Charleston, SC, and 29 people were killed in South Carolina as a result of Hurricane Hugo. One week after Hurricane Hugo hit South Carolina, this Senate passed, by a vote of 100-0, disaster assistance legislation. On the same day, it passed in the House of Representatives, and the following day, September 29, 8 days after the disaster, President Bush signed that into law. A Democratic Congress, a Republican President, and in 8 days we responded to a major disaster within our Nation. In my own State of Florida, on August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated the southern part of our State, killing 40 people and destroying 25,000 homes. On September 8, President Bush requested $7.7 billion of relief. Ten days later, the House and Senate passed the President's recommendation. It was signed into law on September 23, 1992, 30 days after the hurricane had done such devastation. Mr. President, that is the kind of schedule, that is the kind of cooperation between a Congress of one party and a President of another that we should expect, that all Americans should expect, in the event of a disaster that causes extensive damage and loss of life. Contrast those two past experiences with what we are, hopefully, about to conclude today as it relates to the flooding in the Midwest. It was on March 19 of this year that the President made his official request for disaster funds. After that date, the disaster became even more severe as flooding occurred as a result of the severe winter. Today, on June 12, we hopefully will pass the legislation which will go to the President for his signature. The principle is that we should not allow a repetition of what we are experiencing in this concluding chapter of the suffering of the people of the upper Midwest. They deserve to be treated with the same dignity, respect, and sense of urgency that we accorded the people of South Carolina in 1989, that was accorded to the people of my State of Florida in 1992. Mr. President, I commend those who have worked so hard to bring this issue to a resolution. I wish we had been congratulating ourselves on this, not on the 12th of June, but many, many weeks earlier. I hope we have learned a lesson from this experience, and that lesson is, deal with the plight of people, not politics, when it comes to humanitarian relief.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, as I did once before in January of this year, I rise to speak about an issue which is of vital importance to this Nation, the retirement security of our people into the 21st century. Mr. President, the facts are startling. Fifty-one million working Americans are not covered by any type of retirement plan. An incredible 87 percent of workers employed by small businesses, businesses with fewer than 20 employees, have no private retirement or pension coverage. Less than 40 percent of the 33 million Americans, age 65 and older, today collect a pension. These numbers are very, very disturbing. There are three foundations for a secure retirement: Social Security, personal savings, and a pension. Each one of these foundations is eroding. Social Security is unlikely to increase. Personal savings rates are falling. Fewer of today's workers will retire with a lifetime pension. In January, I spoke and mentioned some of the reasons that pension coverage fails to reach so many workers. Some of those reasons include the fact that our work force is changing. For the most part, our pension laws have not kept pace with the changes in the American work force. Think about current workers in an era of tremendous employee mobility--you don't work an entire career for one company, as was the typical pattern for our parents and grandparents. Small business is a tremendously vital part of our economy. Yet, those very small businesses are faced with obstacles in establishing retirement plans. There has been a decline in union membership, and unionized workers are the most apt to be covered under a defined benefit retirement plan. There is a shift away from manufacturing jobs toward service and retail, and, again, pension coverage is higher in manufacturing sectors than in these new expanding areas of the American economy. Knowing that these trends will continue, it is obvious that we need to make certain that our pension laws have kept pace with the changing American work force. My goal is to ensure that each American who works hard for 30, 40 years, or more, has every opportunity for a secure and comfortable retirement. I share this goal with many of my colleagues, including Senators Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, and John Breaux, all of whom join me today in introducing this bipartisan bill. To achieve the goal that every American who works hard for a lifetime will have a secure retirement and pension, we have focused on five areas: Expanded coverage for small businesses, women's equity issues, portability, pension security and enforcement, and simplification. Those, Mr. President, are the five areas of impact for the legislation that we introduce today. I have been honored to participate with some of my colleagues' efforts to build retirement security for American workers. Senator Daschle has created a Democratic pension task force, which led to the introduction of S. 14 on the first day of this session. Senators Moseley-Braun, Murray, and Snowe have furthered the debate in helping women achieve a sound retirement, with the Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act. Senators Conrad and Hatch have focused on clarifying nondiscrimination rules for governmental plans. Senator Boxer has fought to protect pension assets from abuse in 401(k) plans. Senator Gregg's leadership has guided the Republican pension task force to introduce its pension proposal earlier this week. The attention that this issue has received in the Congress highlights its importance to the American people. I am ready to work together and find the common ground that will form the foundation for a secure retirement for millions of Americans. We will take a common bipartisan approach that will be necessary for both sides of the aisle, both employers and employees, in order to build that foundation for the future. We need to be able to offer businessowners and their workers uncumbersome portability, administrative simplicity and the confidence that their plans are secure and well funded. To be honest, when I first saw the statistics of how many people are ill prepared for retirement, I was amazed. I started asking ``Why?'' Why do we have over 50 million Americans not prepared for their retirement? I asked Floridians directly. I have spoken with large and small chambers of commerce. In my career, I have had the opportunity to spend a workday working directly with the people of our State at more than 300 businesses. I have worked side by side with small business owners, with executives, and their employees. My staff, visiting a chamber of commerce in central Florida, recalls the answer given as to why small businesses have few pension plans: ``Administrative costs and red tape.'' When I traveled to Orlando to discuss this bill, I had the arduous task of bringing along the United States Code books and current regulations dealing with pension and retirement. They are overwhelming just by their weight alone. Our Nation's small businesses need simple options. They should be focusing on what they do best--growing their businesses, growing our economy, not attempting to apply a pension law that was written 30 or more years ago for large businesses to their current circumstances. It is crucial that we make it as uncomplicated as possible for our Nation's businesses to offer their employees retirement security. We need to cut back on paperwork, eliminate obstacles to starting pension plans, streamline the complex regulations, and provide employers with the guidance and support they need to continue their valuable efforts. In the end, all of these provisions will encourage employers to offer pension plans because of the lower administrative costs and reduction of red tape. Let me mention a few specific ideas which are incorporated in this legislation. Small businesses are the most vital sector of today's economy. This is where job growth is, and all indications are where it will accelerate in the future. Yet, small businesses face many challenges in providing a secure retirement for their employees: Higher administrative costs to manage a plan; a fluctuating income stream-- some years profits are up; and sometimes they are down--and a lack of resources to keep current with changing laws and regulations. This chart demonstrates the problem. Workers in America with a retirement plan: According to the Small Business Administration, if you work for a company that employs 20 or fewer persons, your chances of having a retirement plan are 13 percent; if you work for a firm with between 21 and 100 employees, your chances are 38 percent; if you work for a firm that employs over 500 people, 72 percent of the time you will be covered by a pension and retirement program. We need to make it a wise business decision for small businessowners to establish a retirement plan for themselves and for their employees. We need to offer simple creative solutions to expand pension coverage for small businesses. Payroll deductions for individual retirement accounts is one example, Mr. President, of the kind of change which is made in this legislation. Even with every effort made for simplification, some businesses won't be able to establish a retirement plan. But even the smallest of small businesses can help their employees. Any step we take to facilitate putting money away for retirement is a step in the right direction. Payroll deductions are the easiest manner of savings. This provision will facilitate the contributions to IRAs by direct deduction from payrolls. Modification of the topheavy rules is another step that will facilitate small businesses providing retirement programs. What are topheavy rules? These are rules which were created to assure that private pension plans were not disproportionately tilted toward highly compensated individuals. These rules affect small businesses much more than large companies. Because topheavy rules are excessively cumbersome, small businesses simply don't offer retirement plans for any of their employees. Our provisions attempt to address this inequity by repealing the family aggregation rules and simplifying the definition of key employees and compensation. It is important that retirement plans benefit all employees--but, if we can modify these rules to help small family businesses prepare for retirement, millions of Americans would be better off in their retirement years. Another area of special concern, Mr. President, in this legislation is the impact that old pension and retirement policies have on women. We know that women are coming into the work force in much larger numbers than they did in previous generations. We know that women are the most mobile component of our work force. They change jobs more frequently. They move in and out of the work force as family and other responsibilities dictate. Women tend, during their career, to care for children and aging parents, which makes it difficult for them to stay in one job long enough to secure the benefits that require long periods of employment. Statistics show that women will live longer in retirement than men. Therefore, they need more, not less, financial resources for their retirement years. Historically during a career, women will earn less than men, thus making it more difficult for them to save for retirement. The provisions that we include in our women and family equity section help both women and men, but they disproportionately help women. Some of the specific concerns women face during their working careers: Time away from work for child care, lower salaries, or divorce. This section can provide a growing sector of our working population a fair chance at a productive and secure retirement. It provides for faster vesting of employers' matching contribution. Under current law, employers may require up to 5 years of service before an employee is entitled to the employer's matching contribution to the business' defined contribution plan. Twenty percent of our work force age 45 to 64 have been in their current jobs less than 4 years. That is a huge sector of the work force who are most likely not to stay long enough to vest in their retirement plan. Women are a disproportionate share of that huge portion of the work force. By reducing the vesting period from 5 years to 3 years, we more accurately reflect the changes in our work force. Spousal IRA is another example of a provision in the current law which particularly adversely affects women. In an American culture where we see more and more two-career couples, we need to encourage each of them to save in every way possible. Under current law, if one spouse is participating in a retirement program at his or her job, no matter how small, the other spouse is precluded from a tax deductible individual retirement account. Senators Roth and Breaux have worked long and hard on this issue, and we have included the results of their efforts in this proposal. It eliminates one barrier that has stood in the way of many two-career families providing for two individuals' pension and retirement security. Individual retirement accounts have proven to be one of the most effective ways to plan for future financial security. Working couples should be encouraged to plan and save through this option. We want to eliminate this barrier to save. Another aspect that particularly affects women is the fact that they are subject to periodic discontinuity in their employment careers. As the father of four daughters and eight grandchildren, I know all the joy a child can bring a family and how much planning is needed for the new parents to assure that they and their children can provide for their future years. Many employees today are taking unpaid leave to spend a few weeks or months with a newborn or a newly adopted child. But by doing so, they may be taking a step away from their own retirement security by not being able to make their usual contributions to their retirement plan. Our provision allows them to do so when they return to the job. This proposal is modeled after legislation that Congress adopted after the gulf war in which returning veterans were allowed to make a contribution to their retirement programs to cover the period that they were away from their job serving their Nation. We will help our Nation's new parents in the same way that we helped returning veterans. Saving for retirement is not an easy task. It takes dedication month after month. Under this provision, we will make certain that the good savings habits that parents have started can be sustained even if they take time away from work to be with a newborn child. Another factor that peculiarly affects women is the issue of portability--the ability to move retirement benefits from one job to the next. Just looking at some of the current statistics, we know that the average American worker over the course of a 40-year career will have seven different employers. The average worker in a 40-year career will have seven different employers. Our pension laws were written in an era that didn't anticipate this modern mobility of the work force. Americans' retirement dreams can be dimmed by the consequences of moving from job to job. They will have less retirement assets. Often there is no choice but to make a job change. A spouse gets transferred to another city to keep the family together; the other spouse moves as well. We in Congress have been in favor of keeping families together. Let's make certain that the family is not hurt in later years by a difficult retirement, a constrained retirement, because of that very mobility. An employee can be downsized. Companies can go bankrupt. Hard-working recent college graduates can move up the career leader. Each of these involve job changes. Mr. President, one of the things that has distinguished the American economy from many other industrialized nations has been this very factor of our mobile work force, that people were willing to move where there were new opportunities, where the changes in the economy dictate that it was to their advantage as well as to the Nation's advantage for people to move from one job to the other. We shouldn't constrain that by imposing a penalty on their long-term retirement security because they have done what is in their interest and what is in the interest of our dynamic economy. When such moves occur, we need to mobilize the pension money, to put wheels under it, to make it as portable as the people who will benefit by those retirement savings. Providing employees with a vehicle to take their pension money with them during their working careers will allow the accrual of larger pensions making it easier on the worker and the employers to keep track of retirement funds. How can we do this? We can do it through several proposals which are incorporated in the bill that I introduce today. Similar defined contribution plans should be able to roll over one into the other. Money in a retirement stream should be kept there until retirement. When you leave one job for another, your retirement savings should be able to travel with you. Mr. President, today American workers have their retirement plans in many different types of specific forms. Well known is the 401(k) plan; also, plans for workers who are employed by nonprofit organizations, workers who are employed by the Government, individual retirement accounts. What we provide in our legislation is that, if a worker moves, for instance, from a Government employment to a private employment, they would be able to carry with them their accumulated retirement benefits from their previous plan into their new employment. This will require the consent of both the employees and the new employer to do so. But the law will no longer erect arbitrary barriers against such transition of employment benefits. All of these plans have their own specific but generally relatively marginal differences. But they all have one common purpose--that is, allowing workers to save for retirement. This ability to move plans as employment history requires a movement will facilitate achieving that objective. Mr. President, we also need to encourage businesses to allow their employees to do this. We will eliminate the fear among businesses that by accepting a new employee's previous retirement assets, the business risks the disqualification of its own plan. Once a pension plan is in place, Congress needs to assure that the assets are invested wisely and securely. America's workers are depending on the assets that are accumulating in retirement plans. Our laws protecting pension assets need to give them the confidence that they need to rely on these plans in retirement. There should be stronger penalties for fraud and embezzlement of plans. We say clearly to the pension fund managers and administrators: If you are guilty of fraud or embezzlement, then your own pension will be at risk. Workers who are hurt by your action will be compensated out of your pension. America's pension fund managers have a sacred trust to millions of employees who will depend on their expertise and skills for a sound retirement. If that trust is broken, harsh sanctions are in order for the guilty party, or managers. There should be greater access to information by employees as to what is the status of their pension retirement fund. Pension security will be enhanced by an educated work force. Employees with the necessary information will be able to watch over their own retirement assets. A vital aspect of retirement security is keeping pension participants fully informed of what they have in their plans and what to expect when they retire. Senator Grassley is to be commended for his efforts in this area, making sure that employees receive accurate information and properly computed pensions. To help employees plan for their retirement, we propose annual benefit statements for all defined contributions plans and every 3 years for defined benefits plans. These statements will help all employees plan carefully and would also help to reduce pension miscalculations. We are acting in an anticipatory way to cut off what we think could be a future threat to retirement security. Once we have made every effort to keep our Nation's pension assets protected from fraud and abuse, let us protect these assets from ourselves. There is already a consumer credit crisis in this country. Millions of American families are overextended, carrying huge balances on multiple credit cards month to month. Our measure will prohibit 401(k) or similar retirement assets from being tied to credit cards. If these credit cards were allowed, we would be putting Americans on the slippery slope, spending retirement assets before retiring. Mr. President, I mentioned that one of our principal areas of concern is simplification, to make it easier for all the participants in the retirement security process to know, to be in compliance with the standards and therefore to be encouraged to provide more adequately for their retirement. Summary plan descriptions and a summary of major modifications will now be substituted for the detailed reporting requirements which are currently required. One less report will be filed. The Department of Labor probably has millions of these current detailed reports stockpiled. Under our proposal, the Labor Department retains the right to request one of these reports from a company, but for simplification's sake let us not require the reports to be sent in unless they are actually needed. We are also sanctioning the use of electronic communications. Our pension laws should get on the information highway. We have asked the Department of the Treasury to look to the use of e-mail and modern technology in administering pension plans. It is common sense. It is simpler to use. It is less expensive. It will encourage particularly small businesses to provide retirement plans. Mr. President, common sense is the foundation of this proposal, to make the punishment for failure to comply with the standards fit the crime. Under current law, the IRS can threaten to disqualify an entire pension plan for inadvertent errors. We are proposing intermediate sanctions, sanctions which are proportionate to the error that has been committed. The IRS is to be commended for several programs they have initiated to work with businesses in this area. We want to codify elements of those plans that are already in practice. As an example, a plan should not be disqualified if a company finds and fixes an error prior to an Internal Revenue Service audit. Rank-and-file employees will not be taxed even if a plan is disqualified. Senators Hatch and Conrad have led the effort to permanently exclude governmental plans from nondiscriminatory rules. Congress placed a temporary moratorium on those rules in 1977. Since then, we have addressed this issue every few years. After two decades, common sense says let us make this permanent. Mr. President, preparing this generation of workers for retirement is, in my view, almost an issue of national security. We know that beginning early in the 21st century there will be a surge of Americans who will reach retirement age. How well prepared those millions of Americans are for the years after retirement will have a significant impact on the economic, personal, and national security of this Nation. A strong economic future depends upon this. Mr. President, you represent a State with significant numbers of persons who have chosen to live there in retirement. That is also true of my State of Florida. Every time I go home to my State, I see the result of persons who have conscientiously planned for their retirement--families that have worked hard, invested wisely, saved diligently, and are now enjoying the benefits of retirement in our State. Collectively, we Americans could learn a lot from this generation. I want to provide this generation with every possible opportunity to have the same lifestyle as our parents are currently enjoying. To achieve this goal, we need businesses to work together with their employees. We need Republicans and Democrats to collaborate in a bipartisan solution to those inhibitions which are currently resulting in over 50 million Americans not having pension retirement plans. We need to work together to find the common ground and to take steps now on the items upon which we agree. Every time we can make pensions more portable, simpler, fairer to women, more attractive to small businesses, more secure, we are helping every American reach their retirement goal. We are making a significant contribution to a better America.