Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 of which I am a proud cosponsor. This resolution congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the 30th anniversary of the reunification of that historic city. This resolution also expresses our strong belief that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as they have been by Israel during the past 30 years. Furthermore it calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to publicly affirm as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel. There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for three millennia and a Jewish majority in the city for the past 150 years. Jerusalem has been, throughout these years, the holiest of cities and the focal point of Jewish devotion. Jerusalem remains a unique and critically important city to the Jewish people. Jerusalem is also the only city in the world which serves as the capital of the same country, inhabited by the same people, speaking the same language, and worshipping the same God as was the case 3,000 years ago. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Jewish people were driven out of the Old City of Jerusalem and denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan. For 19 years Israelis of all faiths and Jews from all around the world were prevented from visiting their holiest sites by the barbed wire which divided Jerusalem. Today we commemorate 30 years of unrestricted access to these holy sites. Since the Israeli Government reunified Jerusalem under its control, the rights of all religious and ethnic groups have been restored and vigilantly protected. The protection of the rights of every ethnic and religious group is critical to the maintenance of peace in such a diverse and religiously significant region. We are here today to commend the Israeli people and their government for restoring full access for all people to their holy sites. Today we again lend our support to continued Israeli control of a unified Jerusalem. Support for a strong, independent, and undivided Israel is the keystone of our policy in the Middle East. Israel is not only the sole democracy in the region, but also a country with which we share cultural and historical ties. Our continued support of Israel, and of Jerusalem as its undivided capital, is especially important in this crucial point in the peace process. We are here today in continuation of our previous policy initiatives regarding Israel and its control of Jerusalem. In 1990, the Congress adopted concurrent resolutions declaring that the Congress ``strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected.'' In 1992, the Congress adopted resolutions to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, additionally reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city. Congress' most forceful and symbolically consequential actions in recognition of the importance of a unified Jerusalem have been part of its systematic rebuke of its previous policy of maintaining the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. For some time the United States has conducted its official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 stated as a matter of policy that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Funds for the building of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem were recently appropriated in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, H.R. 1486. As a Member of this Senate and a long-time supporter of Israel, I am proud to stand with many of my distinguished colleagues as a cosponsor of this important resolution.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, and join my colleagues, Senator Mack and Senator Baucus, to introduce timely legislation that addresses a problem that continues to plague the Medicare Program-- fraud and abuse. The premise of this bill is quite simple: if Congress is to look for cuts in the Medicare Program, it should begin with eradicating fraud--for several reasons: First, we cannot fix Medicare while letting fraud erode the system. The General Accounting Office estimates that the Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse ripoff rate is about 10 percent. With fraud pilfering the health system's resources losses to Medicare and the Federal share of Medicaid could be $30 billion annually. Using the most conservative of estimates, we could cover an additional 2 million seniors a year with funds lost just to Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse. Mr. President, over the next few weeks, Congress will be ironing out the details of a historic budget agreement--one which will finally balance the budget. And both Congress and the President deserve credit for doing so. However, a balanced budget does not come without some pain--some consequences. For instance, the Medicare Program will realize cuts of approximately $115 billion over the next 5 years. We will be asking our Nation's seniors to share in the sacrifice along with the rest of the country. Congress cannot, in good conscience, ask the Medicare Program and its beneficiaries to accept cuts unless we also work hard to eradicate fraud and abuse. Passage of the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation last year was a step in the right direction. But the cheats and swindlers are clever at gaming the system. It is a sad fact that there will always be greedy people looking to take advantage of our Nation's seniors. So it is imperative that Congress be equally vigilant by cracking down on fraud wherever possible. Passage of my bill will continue the process and send this signal to the con artists and thieves: ``Your days are numbered.'' My legislation is crafted to build on State successes. For instance, one of the most crucial provisions in my bill, modeled after an extremely successful Florida Medicaid antifraud program, requires providers of durable medical equipment, home health, and transportation services to 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 the cost of between $500 and $1,500, the requirement has achieved tremendous results in my State. Since implementation of the surety bond 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 Programs 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. Two years ago I spent a day working in the U.S. attorney's Office in south Florida. I realized then that it was easier to get a provider number under Medicare than a personal VISA; easier to get a blank check paid for by the Treasury than a VISA or MasterCard. This bill requires individuals to provide their social security number [SSN] and employer identification number [EIN] to get a Medicare provider number. This will make it more difficult for swindlers to enter the program. This bill has several other provisions which are critical to stemming rampant fraud in the Medicare Program: My bill would enable State fraud control units, often the first line in the fight against health care fraud, to investigate and prosecute fraud in Federal health care programs. It would also prevent providers from discharging Medicare debt by declaring bankruptcy. The bill would also preclude Medicare swindlers from transferring their business to a family member in order to circumvent exclusion from the Medicare Program. This legislation enacts a broad-based Federal statute aimed at suppressing Medicare fraud. It enhances the arsenal of weapons to combat fraud and prescribes stiff penalties against those convicted of fraud. At the signing of the Medicare bill in Missouri 30 years ago, President Johnson said that Medicare had been planted with ``the seed of compassion and duty which have today flowered into care for the sick and serenity for the fearful.'' Medicare has lived up to its promise. But fraud is threatening to compromise the integrity of the system. We have the prescriptions to combat fraud. Now is the time to employ them if we want to save the integrity of Medicare.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, and join my colleagues, Senator Mack and Senator Baucus, to introduce timely legislation that addresses a problem that continues to plague the Medicare Program-- fraud and abuse. The premise of this bill is quite simple: if Congress is to look for cuts in the Medicare Program, it should begin with eradicating fraud--for several reasons: First, we cannot fix Medicare while letting fraud erode the system. The General Accounting Office estimates that the Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse ripoff rate is about 10 percent. With fraud pilfering the health system's resources losses to Medicare and the Federal share of Medicaid could be $30 billion annually. Using the most conservative of estimates, we could cover an additional 2 million seniors a year with funds lost just to Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse. Mr. President, over the next few weeks, Congress will be ironing out the details of a historic budget agreement--one which will finally balance the budget. And both Congress and the President deserve credit for doing so. However, a balanced budget does not come without some pain--some consequences. For instance, the Medicare Program will realize cuts of approximately $115 billion over the next 5 years. We will be asking our Nation's seniors to share in the sacrifice along with the rest of the country. Congress cannot, in good conscience, ask the Medicare Program and its beneficiaries to accept cuts unless we also work hard to eradicate fraud and abuse. Passage of the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation last year was a step in the right direction. But the cheats and swindlers are clever at gaming the system. It is a sad fact that there will always be greedy people looking to take advantage of our Nation's seniors. So it is imperative that Congress be equally vigilant by cracking down on fraud wherever possible. Passage of my bill will continue the process and send this signal to the con artists and thieves: ``Your days are numbered.'' My legislation is crafted to build on State successes. For instance, one of the most crucial provisions in my bill, modeled after an extremely successful Florida Medicaid antifraud program, requires providers of durable medical equipment, home health, and transportation services to 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 the cost of between $500 and $1,500, the requirement has achieved tremendous results in my State. Since implementation of the surety bond 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 Programs 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. Two years ago I spent a day working in the U.S. attorney's Office in south Florida. I realized then that it was easier to get a provider number under Medicare than a personal VISA; easier to get a blank check paid for by the Treasury than a VISA or MasterCard. This bill requires individuals to provide their social security number [SSN] and employer identification number [EIN] to get a Medicare provider number. This will make it more difficult for swindlers to enter the program. This bill has several other provisions which are critical to stemming rampant fraud in the Medicare Program: My bill would enable State fraud control units, often the first line in the fight against health care fraud, to investigate and prosecute fraud in Federal health care programs. It would also prevent providers from discharging Medicare debt by declaring bankruptcy. The bill would also preclude Medicare swindlers from transferring their business to a family member in order to circumvent exclusion from the Medicare Program. This legislation enacts a broad-based Federal statute aimed at suppressing Medicare fraud. It enhances the arsenal of weapons to combat fraud and prescribes stiff penalties against those convicted of fraud. At the signing of the Medicare bill in Missouri 30 years ago, President Johnson said that Medicare had been planted with ``the seed of compassion and duty which have today flowered into care for the sick and serenity for the fearful.'' Medicare has lived up to its promise. But fraud is threatening to compromise the integrity of the system. We have the prescriptions to combat fraud. Now is the time to employ them if we want to save the integrity of Medicare.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce the Principal Residence Tax Exclusion Act of 1997. Earlier this year, Representatives Rob Portman and Ben Cardin introduced similar legislation, styled H.R. 1391, in the House of Representatives. In addition, both President Clinton and former Senator Dole have expressed strong support for a capital gains exclusion for our Nation's homeowners. This is a proposal that enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Now is the time to make good on our promises to help our Nation's families. As everyone knows, moving is a stressful and complicated process. Besides worrying about whether to take advantage of a job opportunity in another State or to move closer to family members or to accept some other reason for relocation, such as a change of residence at retirement, people should not have added to all of those complex decisions the worry about paying taxes on the sale of their permanent residence. This act will get the tax code out of the family's decisionmaking process. It will allow the family to make decisions based on the family's specific circumstances, not based on constraints imposed by the tax law. What is the current law? Under the current law, capital gains from the sale of principal residences are subject to taxation. However, two provisions exclude many homeowners from the effect of that taxation. First, under the so-called rollover provision, taxpayers can roll over gains from the sale of a principal residence into a new residence and defer any capital gains tax under certain conditions. One of those is that the purchase price of the new residence must exceed the adjusted sales price of the previous principal residence. The new residence must be purchased within 2 years of the date of sale of the first home. There is a second provision which results in many homeowners not paying a capital gains tax on a principal residence. And that is the age 55 exclusion, a taxpayer is eligible for a one-time permanent exclusion of up to $125,000 on any accumulated gain from the sale of their principal residence. In addition to meeting the age 55 requirement to qualify for this exclusion, the taxpayer must have owned the residence and used it as their principal residence for at least 3 years during the 5 years prior to the sale. A taxpayer is eligible for the exclusion only if neither the taxpayer nor the taxpayer's spouse has previously benefited from this exclusion. Consequently, Mr. President, to avoid the tax, most people wait until they are eligible for the one-time exclusion or they make what may be uneconomic decisions regarding the sale of their home. Mr. President, this is not right. People should be able to move when they want to, not when the tax code makes it financially possible. They should be able to buy a smaller home, if that is what they desire, without having to pay a tax on the difference between their profit on the sale of the first home and the price of the new home. Mr. President, this is an issue of removing governmental intrusion from family matters. This is an issue of allowing Americans to be free from unnecessarily burdensome requirements. This is an issue of permitting people to make decisions that will ultimately have a positive impact on the American economy. The Principal Residence Tax Exclusion Act would go a long way toward resolving each of these issues. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this proposal. Under this act, the Principal Residence Tax Exclusion Act, taxpayers of any age--I underscore ``any age''--could exclude the gain on the sale of a principal residence of up to $500,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and up to $250,000 for a single taxpayer. To be eligible, the taxpayer must have owned and used the home as the principal residence for at least 2 of the last 5 years prior to the sale. The exclusion will generally be available once every 2 years. This legislation would have a far-reaching impact on the families of our Nation. Under the current law, approximately 150,000 families annually have taxable gain on the sale of their homes. This number would be even higher. However, concern about the tax causes most people to wait until they are eligible for the one-time exclusion or to buy increasingly more expensive homes over time regardless of whether such purchases are economically wise or otherwise meet the family's needs. Under the new proposal, the Department of the Treasury estimates that only about 10,000 transactions annually would be subject to taxation. So nearly all families would be relieved of the burdensome recordkeeping requirements and constraints on decisionmaking which are part of the current law. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention one such family, a family who I believe represents the concerns of many American families. Rudy and Lynn Saumell of Valrico, FL, retired and moved to Florida several years ago after working for a combined total of 60 years in the Connecticut school system. Lynn taught remedial math in the elementary school for 25 years. Rudy taught for 15 years before serving as an assistant principal for 20 more years. The Saumells lived in their Connecticut home with their two daughters for 23 years. When the Saumells retired 5 years ago, their girls had long since left home; the family's needs had changed. Lynn and Rudy decided to move to Florida to be near some of their relatives and to enjoy the warm climate and a hospitable neighborhood. They no longer needed such a large home. They were moving to a lower cost area. But the Saumells were concerned about being taxed on the sale of their Connecticut home. So, upon their accountant's advice, they bought a more expensive home than they needed and used both the one-time exclusion and the rollover provision to avoid paying tax on their previous residence's sale. In order to qualify under current law, the Saumells had to keep extensive records of all of the improvements they made to their previous residence. For over two decades, they complied with the law to the best of their abilities despite the difficulties they encountered in doing so. I commend the Saumells for their diligence. I agree with them that these requirements seem unnecessarily burdensome and nearly impossible to fulfill without error, omission, or honest misunderstanding. The act I propose would eliminate the need to keep these detailed records for 99 percent-plus of all Americans. After spending 5 years in their new home, the Saumells still want to move to a smaller home in a retirement community. They are paying more than they would like in property taxes. Their heat, water, and electric bills would be greatly reduced. Instead, Rudy and Lynn would rather spend the money they have saved for traveling and helping their daughters buy homes for their new families. Lynn and Rudy do not need such a big home for just the two of them. But the Saumells are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Under the current law, if they keep their house they will not be able to spend their savings as they would like. But if they sell their home and buy a less expensive one, they cannot use the over-55 exemption again since it is only available once in a lifetime and the rollover provision would not apply since they are not moving to a more expensive home. Thus their savings would be eaten up by a large capital gains tax, defeating the purpose of selling their current residence. So they are locked in the dilemma: Do we stay in a home that is larger than we need, more expensive than we can afford, or do we sell the home and suffer a substantial capital gains tax? Mr. President, why should the Saumells have to base their housing decisions on the Tax Code rather than their family requirements? Why should they be prevented from spending their savings on what they deem to be important? Like many Americans who are affected by the capital gains tax on home sales, Rudy and Lynn have spent their entire lives working and saving for their retirement and to assist their daughters in starting their new families' lives. It is unfair to deny them the freedom to spend these savings as they wish. So I offer this legislation to allow the Saumells and all of our Nation's families more freedom in their decisionmaking, to be able to decide where to live based on their families' circumstances, not on the Tax Code. Rudy now volunteers with a local television station to help people recover money that has been wrongfully withheld from them. Isn't it time that we remove the Tax Code restraints on Rudy and help him get back the free use of his own money? Mr. President, we have the means, the opportunity, and the support to help our Nation's families in a very significant way. Passing this legislation is more than providing relief to our Nation's homeowners. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the ERC, the Employee Relocation Council, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce the Principal Residence Tax Exclusion Act of 1997. Earlier this year, Representatives Rob Portman and Ben Cardin introduced similar legislation, styled H.R. 1391, in the House of Representatives. In addition, both President Clinton and former Senator Dole have expressed strong support for a capital gains exclusion for our Nation's homeowners. This is a proposal that enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Now is the time to make good on our promises to help our Nation's families. As everyone knows, moving is a stressful and complicated process. Besides worrying about whether to take advantage of a job opportunity in another State or to move closer to family members or to accept some other reason for relocation, such as a change of residence at retirement, people should not have added to all of those complex decisions the worry about paying taxes on the sale of their permanent residence. This act will get the tax code out of the family's decisionmaking process. It will allow the family to make decisions based on the family's specific circumstances, not based on constraints imposed by the tax law. What is the current law? Under the current law, capital gains from the sale of principal residences are subject to taxation. However, two provisions exclude many homeowners from the effect of that taxation. First, under the so-called rollover provision, taxpayers can roll over gains from the sale of a principal residence into a new residence and defer any capital gains tax under certain conditions. One of those is that the purchase price of the new residence must exceed the adjusted sales price of the previous principal residence. The new residence must be purchased within 2 years of the date of sale of the first home. There is a second provision which results in many homeowners not paying a capital gains tax on a principal residence. And that is the age 55 exclusion, a taxpayer is eligible for a one-time permanent exclusion of up to $125,000 on any accumulated gain from the sale of their principal residence. In addition to meeting the age 55 requirement to qualify for this exclusion, the taxpayer must have owned the residence and used it as their principal residence for at least 3 years during the 5 years prior to the sale. A taxpayer is eligible for the exclusion only if neither the taxpayer nor the taxpayer's spouse has previously benefited from this exclusion. Consequently, Mr. President, to avoid the tax, most people wait until they are eligible for the one-time exclusion or they make what may be uneconomic decisions regarding the sale of their home. Mr. President, this is not right. People should be able to move when they want to, not when the tax code makes it financially possible. They should be able to buy a smaller home, if that is what they desire, without having to pay a tax on the difference between their profit on the sale of the first home and the price of the new home. Mr. President, this is an issue of removing governmental intrusion from family matters. This is an issue of allowing Americans to be free from unnecessarily burdensome requirements. This is an issue of permitting people to make decisions that will ultimately have a positive impact on the American economy. The Principal Residence Tax Exclusion Act would go a long way toward resolving each of these issues. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this proposal. Under this act, the Principal Residence Tax Exclusion Act, taxpayers of any age--I underscore ``any age''--could exclude the gain on the sale of a principal residence of up to $500,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and up to $250,000 for a single taxpayer. To be eligible, the taxpayer must have owned and used the home as the principal residence for at least 2 of the last 5 years prior to the sale. The exclusion will generally be available once every 2 years. This legislation would have a far-reaching impact on the families of our Nation. Under the current law, approximately 150,000 families annually have taxable gain on the sale of their homes. This number would be even higher. However, concern about the tax causes most people to wait until they are eligible for the one-time exclusion or to buy increasingly more expensive homes over time regardless of whether such purchases are economically wise or otherwise meet the family's needs. Under the new proposal, the Department of the Treasury estimates that only about 10,000 transactions annually would be subject to taxation. So nearly all families would be relieved of the burdensome recordkeeping requirements and constraints on decisionmaking which are part of the current law. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention one such family, a family who I believe represents the concerns of many American families. Rudy and Lynn Saumell of Valrico, FL, retired and moved to Florida several years ago after working for a combined total of 60 years in the Connecticut school system. Lynn taught remedial math in the elementary school for 25 years. Rudy taught for 15 years before serving as an assistant principal for 20 more years. The Saumells lived in their Connecticut home with their two daughters for 23 years. When the Saumells retired 5 years ago, their girls had long since left home; the family's needs had changed. Lynn and Rudy decided to move to Florida to be near some of their relatives and to enjoy the warm climate and a hospitable neighborhood. They no longer needed such a large home. They were moving to a lower cost area. But the Saumells were concerned about being taxed on the sale of their Connecticut home. So, upon their accountant's advice, they bought a more expensive home than they needed and used both the one-time exclusion and the rollover provision to avoid paying tax on their previous residence's sale. In order to qualify under current law, the Saumells had to keep extensive records of all of the improvements they made to their previous residence. For over two decades, they complied with the law to the best of their abilities despite the difficulties they encountered in doing so. I commend the Saumells for their diligence. I agree with them that these requirements seem unnecessarily burdensome and nearly impossible to fulfill without error, omission, or honest misunderstanding. The act I propose would eliminate the need to keep these detailed records for 99 percent-plus of all Americans. After spending 5 years in their new home, the Saumells still want to move to a smaller home in a retirement community. They are paying more than they would like in property taxes. Their heat, water, and electric bills would be greatly reduced. Instead, Rudy and Lynn would rather spend the money they have saved for traveling and helping their daughters buy homes for their new families. Lynn and Rudy do not need such a big home for just the two of them. But the Saumells are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Under the current law, if they keep their house they will not be able to spend their savings as they would like. But if they sell their home and buy a less expensive one, they cannot use the over-55 exemption again since it is only available once in a lifetime and the rollover provision would not apply since they are not moving to a more expensive home. Thus their savings would be eaten up by a large capital gains tax, defeating the purpose of selling their current residence. So they are locked in the dilemma: Do we stay in a home that is larger than we need, more expensive than we can afford, or do we sell the home and suffer a substantial capital gains tax? Mr. President, why should the Saumells have to base their housing decisions on the Tax Code rather than their family requirements? Why should they be prevented from spending their savings on what they deem to be important? Like many Americans who are affected by the capital gains tax on home sales, Rudy and Lynn have spent their entire lives working and saving for their retirement and to assist their daughters in starting their new families' lives. It is unfair to deny them the freedom to spend these savings as they wish. So I offer this legislation to allow the Saumells and all of our Nation's families more freedom in their decisionmaking, to be able to decide where to live based on their families' circumstances, not on the Tax Code. Rudy now volunteers with a local television station to help people recover money that has been wrongfully withheld from them. Isn't it time that we remove the Tax Code restraints on Rudy and help him get back the free use of his own money? Mr. President, we have the means, the opportunity, and the support to help our Nation's families in a very significant way. Passing this legislation is more than providing relief to our Nation's homeowners. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the ERC, the Employee Relocation Council, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Evan Berman, Evie Gissendanner, and Hassan Tyler of my staff be granted privilege of the floor for the duration of my comments.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 840 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I join all those in America who are concerned about filling judicial vacancies in expressing gratitude to Senators Hatch and Leahy for bringing judicial nominations to the floor for our timely consideration. Florida, with some of the busiest districts in the Nation, has three Federal judicial vacancies. With our action today, one of those vacancies is no more, and the people of Florida's southern district will soon be served by an outstanding and experienced member of both the legal and larger south Florida community--Mr. Don Middlebrooks. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fill all of the judicial vacancies in Florida. But today's action is a very positive step forward. Mr. President, the people served by the jurists we confirm have a right to expect judges who bring unquestioned competence, strong integrity, devotion to duty, and diversity of experience with them to the Federal bench. Throughout his career--as an undergraduate and law student at the University of Florida, a public servant, and a distinguished member of the south Florida legal community--Don Middlebrooks has met--and exceeded--this standard of excellence time and time again. Mr. Middlebrooks started his career in the public service at the University of Florida, where his fellow undergraduates elected him president of the student body. That excellence in student government was followed by distinction at the University of Florida Law School and, eventually, outstanding service in the Florida State government. In 1974, Don Middlebrooks was asked to serve the people of Florida as assistant general counsel to then-Governor Reubin Askew. He served with such distinction that Governor Askew ultimately elevated him to the post of general counsel. Three years later, as Governor Askew's second and final term was coming to a close, Mr. Middlebrooks left Tallahassee and joined the south Florida offices of Steel, Hector, & Davis, one of our State's oldest and largest law firms. His 20 years of experience with highly complex legal issues makes him especially well-prepared for the cases that he will see as a Federal district court judge in south Florida. But the fact that Don Middlebrooks has spent the last two decades in the private sector does not mean that he has neglected his commitment to public service. In addition to handling numerous pro bono cases himself, Mr. Middlebrooks was chairman of Steel, Hector, & Davis' public service committee when the firm received the American Bar Association pro bono award and the Florida Supreme Court chief justice's law firm commendation. He has also been a civic leader. The list of his involvements is long and distinguished--chairman of the Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Commission, president of the Florida Bar Association, member of the Florida Ethics Commission. Perhaps Don Middlebrooks' most important civic contribution has been his tireless commitment to the welfare of Florida's youngest generation--its children. In addition to being the father of 11-year-old Amanda and 9-year-old Jack, Mr. Middlebrooks has served as chairman of the Palm Beach County Children's Services Council, chairman of the Florida Bar Commission for Children, and a member of the Florida Commission on Child Welfare. Mr. Chairman, throughout his life, Don Middlebrooks has been respected by his peers, hailed for his outstanding service to the people of Florida, honored for his civic involvements, and praised for his skill and competence in the legal arena. I have no doubt that this pattern of distinction and outstanding service will continue once he is invested as a Federal judge in the southern district of Florida. statements on the nomination of jeffrey t. miller

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Five minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to rise on behalf of the amendment that is being offered by our distinguished colleague from Illinois. Frankly, my own criticism of her proposal is that I think it is too modest in relationship to the challenge that we face as a Nation. As she has pointed out, our own General Accounting Office has indicated that there is a need in this Nation to bring existing schools up to a standard of basic safety, health, and educational adequacy of over $100 billion. What is not included in that number, Mr. President, is what is required to build the new classrooms for the exploding student population. If I could use my own State as an example, Mr. President. Last year we had over 55,000 new students enrolled at the public schools in the State of Florida. That number will continue, in terms of angle rate of growth, for the foreseeable future. Similar numbers are true in States across America, as the baby boom population is now having babies and those babies are reaching school age. So we have a crisis not only in terms of rebuilding our older schools, but also in assuring new schools in order to avoid overcrowded classrooms. If I could tell a personal story, my own daughter was a kindergarten teacher in Dade County, FL. Her last year teaching in a brand new elementary school she had 38 5-year-olds in her kindergarten class. My daughter is a wonderful teacher. I would defy anyone to truly educate 38 5-year-olds in one classroom. I might say, she went on from that experience. She was married, she taught for a brief period in Virginia, and now is a mother. In fact she is not only a mother, she is a mother of triplets. And so she said she was the only mother of triplets who ended up with 35 fewer children to deal with. Mr. President, that personal story underscores what is happening in too many classrooms to too many of our young Americans. And that is, that because we have fallen so woefully behind in maintenance as well as new construction, we are not providing the educational facilities that students need. The question is asked, ``Well, that's a State and local responsibility. Why are you here in Washington talking about this? You, a former State legislator, a former Governor, you certainly understand where the responsibility for education lies.'' Absolutely. I would defend the right and the importance of maintaining our tradition that States and local communities especially be responsible for those things that happen inside the classroom, curriculum, personnel policy, teacher relationships. But, Mr. President, there is a role for the Federal Government in the physical facilities of schools. We have demonstrated this for a long time in higher education. There is probably not a major college or university in America that cannot point to a substantial number of its physical facilities having been built with totally or in part Federal funds. We have recognized that distinction of concrete and steel from what happens inside the classroom and the appropriateness of a Federal role in meeting those facilities challenges. If we are serious about the proposition that the key to a competitive America in the 21st century is going to be how well our Americans are educated, and how well they will be able to compete in the increasingly globalized economy, certainly the Federal Government has a role in seeing that the physical places in which that preparation is going to take place meet acceptable standards. They do not meet those standards in too many communities in America today. And we, Mr. President, are about to exacerbate that situation. One of the reasons that we have 55,000-plus new students in the Florida public schools is because of Federal immigration policy. The Federal Government has adopted policies which have resulted in tens of thousands of young people who were not born in the United States now being in the United States and being educated in our public schools. I think the Federal Government has a moral responsibility to assist when it is the precipitator of a significant amount of the challenge that school districts face. We are about to consider some substantial enhancements in the opportunity for young people to go to college through credits and deductions toward that tuition. Mr. President, that could have a significant effect on college tuition. I have a letter from the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Treasury which indicates that the estimate of enrollment which will increase substantially in higher education as a result of the proposal for credits and deductions for college tuition is between 120,000 and 1.4 million. So we are about to consider a proposal which has the potential not only of creating a substantial surge in additional enrollment in higher education but would have a spillover effect in terms of the number of students and the kinds of educational opportunities that would be expected, particularly within our secondary schools. Mr. President, the Federal Government has a second responsibility because we are a significant part of the policies which are causing the demands that are occurring on the physical facilities of our public schools. Finally, one of the reasons that the reports are as dire as the General Accounting Office report states is so many States and local school districts are against the wall in their capacity to finance the maintenance of their schools and new construction. It has not been people at the local level that are indefinite, it is not that they are blind to the problem, it is that they are in many cases out of options as to how to deal with the problem, either because of statutory or economic limitations. I believe there is an appropriate Federal role to be a partner, and I underscore the word partner, with States and local school districts in meeting their school construction needs. This proposal is a beginning toward that new very important relationship. I commend the Senator from Illinois for her leadership in this matter. I hope her voice will be heard by our colleagues. I can tell you it is being heard out in America. They understand the importance of this issue. They understand the need to have Washington respond in a meaningful and tangible way. The question is whether we hear those voices here in this Chamber.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, again let us sort out what we are considering here. First, we have what is an admitted arithmetical error by the Department of Treasury. We are attempting to correct that error. There is no dispute between those who advocate the Warner-Graham amendment and those who are proposing the language in the underlying bill that we should correct that error. What is happening now is that because of that error, that mistake, we are now trying to change the fundamental law that relates to the allocation of surface transportation funds among the States. It would be as if a person had been involved in an automobile accident and had suffered significant injuries and received an insurance payment to make that person whole again, to repay them, reimburse them for the injuries, the medical bills, the lost wages and the other damages that they had suffered, and then their neighbor would turn and say, well, we ought to get the same bill so that we can maintain parity with our neighbor who has gotten this cash settlement from his or her insurance company. The States that were the losers, that were adversely affected by this arithmetic error are not getting any windfall. They are just like that person involved in the accident. They are being made whole. They are not getting a dime more than they were entitled to get or that they would have gotten under the ISTEA legislation had it been properly administered at every stage. They are being made whole, for an error that was made and was beyond the capacity of the States to control. That is just fundamental fairness. They are not getting anything that is a benefit beyond what they were entitled to. That is the first $139 million. Now we are looking at the second $800 million that is being distributed under this proposal, which relates to how everybody else, the States that were not adversely affected, are going to be treated under this law. Senator Warner and I recommend a simple standard. If we are going to decide that additional highway money should be provided beyond that which is required to rectify this error, it ought to be distributed pursuant to the law. We passed a law in 1991 that set up a method of allocating funds among the 50 States and territories. That law ought to be abided by. There was reference made by some of the previous speakers that by applying the Warner-Graham standard, some States were going to get zero. No State will get zero. Every State will participate in the $800 million, exactly as the law that we passed in 1991 provides they should. Every State will get a significant amount of additional highway funds beyond what they are presently contemplating. Every State will be a winner. The question is, are they going to be a winner under the rules that we adopted through the process of this Senate--an authorization committee holding extensive hearings, reporting out a bill, that bill being debated for days and days on the Senate floor, finally going to a conference committee and a product that the President of the United States signed into law? Are we going to respect that process and use that as the means of distributing this additional $800 million? Or, are we, at the last gasp of the 1991 legislation, to say, ``No, we don't want to do that; we want to use a different formula, and that formula is going to say that we are going to hold a set of States harmless by pouring additional money into those States,'' in effect undoing the underlying law that was passed through the congressional process of this Senate and House of Representatives with the concurrence of the President? There is an issue of fundamental fairness here. A number of States for many years have been contributing substantially more to the National Highway System than they were receiving back. As I said earlier, there are rationales for that that I can accept, recognizing that all States do not have the same capacity, they do not have the same geography, the same population, in order to support a National Highway System. The States that are the donor States are not asking to get back 100 percent, but they are saying, in the last year, in the 6th year of a 6-year highway bill, we ought to at least get back 90 percent. That is what we agreed to. That is the deal that was made. That is what I think should be honored. That is what fundamental fairness calls for. That is what we achieve by the adoption of the Warner-Graham amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. So we----

Mr. GRAHAM. Am I correct the amendment that he has offered would, in fact, provide that the $318 million, plus the $475 million, all be distributed pursuant to the 1991 ISTEA act?

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator name one of those?

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator says there are 27 States that have zero addition to the transportation funds under the Warner-Graham amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this has been an illuminating discussion to an admittedly complex question. So, without being redundant, I will step back to see if we can sort out what are the issues in agreement and what are the issues upon which we disagree. One area in which there is agreement, agreement both in the underlying supplemental appropriations bill and in the amendment that is offered by my colleague from Virginia, myself, and others, is that the $139 million, which was an admitted error of arithmetic basis in the Department of the Treasury, should be corrected. There are States which received less funds than they should have received because of that admitted error. I think there is virtual unanimous agreement that we should correct that error. We will do so. Whichever position we take on this amendment, $139 million will flow to those States which were the object of that inadvertent omission. The second question upon which there is agreement is that the total funds for surface transportation should be increased in this supplemental appropriations bill beyond the $139 million, and there is basic agreement that the amount of that increase should be approximately $800 million. Both the underlying bill and the amendment provide for the allocation of an additional $800 million beyond the $139 million necessary to correct the error. The issue becomes how that $800 million should be structured and what is the rationale for the $800 million. A portion of that $800 million, roughly $318 million, represents those States which had been given an expectation of what they would have received--a false expectation, based on that arithmetic error and acted upon that expectation. They thought they were going to get an additional $4 or $5 million because of the arithmetic error, and they calculated that into their State highway fund. Question: Should the Federal Government, even though it was in error, it was a false expectation, but it was a communicated expectation and it was an expectation upon which the States took action, be responsible for those funds? I think that is a debatable issue. The third portion of this debate has to do with the remaining $475 million. Let me say at this point--and I mean no disrespect to any comments made thus far--this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the arithmetic error. I repeat that it has nothing to do with the issue of the arithmetic error. I cite as my authority for that, first, the supplemental appropriations bill itself, on page 39, lines 12 through 18, which clearly outline that the purpose of these funds is, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, such additional authority shall be distributed to assure that no State shall receive an amount in fiscal year 1997 that is less than the amount they received in 1996. That doesn't have anything to do with an arithmetic error. That has to do with providing a hold-harmless provision in this supplemental appropriations bill, which was not provided in the ISTEA Act of 1991. Mr. President, if we could briefly go back to that legislation, that legislation contained the allocation of some $120 billion of Federal funds to the States and territories for surface transportation. It was a very contentious bill, as all of these bills tend to be. It contained a provision for those States that had traditionally received back substantially less than they had contributed to the highway funds, that in the last year of the 6 years of ISTEA authorization, which is fiscal year 1997, there would be inserted a 90-percent floor--that is, that no State, in the last year of the 6 years of ISTEA, would get back less than 90 percent of what it contributed to the highway fund. That 90 percent standard had been the holy grail of those States that had, in the past, gotten back substantially less than 90 percent. We had attempted, frankly, to get that standard applied in every year of the 1991 ISTEA bill. But politically unable to do that, the compromise was that, in the last year, that objective would be achieved. Since we are dealing with a zero-sum amount of money--that is, there is a fixed amount of money to be distributed in 1997, obviously some States had to get less in 1997 than they got in 1996 in order for other States to be brought up to this 90-percent floor. That was understood, that was part of the negotiation, that was part of the common understanding of the Congress and President Bush when he signed this legislation in 1991. That is the issue that the $475 million goes to. It has nothing to do with the arithmetic error made in the Department of the Treasury. What this $475 million essentially says is that we are going to pour $475 million of additional Federal money, beyond that which had been contemplated in 1991, into the ISTEA program and specifically into a policy that will assure that, regardless of what the law said that we passed in 1991, we are going to guarantee that we are not playing with a zero-sum game, because no State will get less in 1997 than the State received in 1996. Now, that is the issue that this amendment raises. What this amendment says is that if we are going to provide these additional funds beyond that which is required to correct the arithmetic error, we should be faithful to the law that we passed in 1991 and we should distribute that money under the provisions of the law that is already the law of the land and will govern the distribution of highway funds in 1991. Mr. President, I believe that is an extremely important and clarion call for fundamental fairness. We had this debate in 1991. We decided on the compromise, which is the essence of the congressional process, that a 90-percent floor concept would be available, but only in the last year. Now, in the last hours of the life of ISTEA, we are about to vitiate that understanding. It is fair because those States which have traditionally been substantially donor States--that is, they sent more money to Washington than they got back--this represents an opportunity--we are not going to say that all States are going to get 100 percent of their money; we are going to say that no State will get less than 90-percent of its money. Now, frankly, Mr. President, I do not support the principle that all States should get 100 percent, because I recognize exactly what the Senator from Alaska is saying. We are dealing with a national surface transportation system, and there are rational reasons why some States, such as the very large geographic areas, get a certain amount. The small-population State of Alaska should get back more than other States in order to be able to maintain an equivalent level of their contribution to a National Highway System. But that was the essence of the debate that we had in 1991, and we came to this resolution that we should establish, in the last year of the 6-year authorization, this principle of a 90-percent floor. That principle is about to be violated by pouring $475 million into this program in its final weeks of existence in order to assure that no State will get less than it got in 1996. So, Mr. President, for fundamental fairness to the Nation, to the fundamental credibility of this very important program of Federal-State partnership for the mobility needs of America, I urge that we adopt the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Virginia, that we focus on the issue that this amendment raises, which is not an issue of arithmetic perfection, it is an issue of fairness protection. We arrived at how these funds should be allocated. We should stick with the agreement that we have. We should not, in a supplemental appropriations bill, on May 8, attempt to change it. So, Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment offered, and I commend my colleague from Virginia for the leadership provided.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize and congratulate a group of outstanding citizens from Broward County. These men and women have each given a great gift to their communities--they have given of themselves. Samuel Bonier, of Sunrise, has spent the last 4 years volunteering at the Daniel D. Cantor Senior Center. His activities include serving as an assistant bookkeeper, mail clerk and needed friend to the center's residents. Samuel is also concerned about the community's children and has donated his time to help feed and bathe children in the Ann Storch Center. For his selfless actions Samuel was awarded the Volunteer of the Month Award in 1994 by the Cantor Center. Pearl Canady, of Fort Lauderdale, imparted her wisdom to countless students as a teacher for over 30 years in the Broward County School System. Pearl continues to serve her community as a member of the Area Agency on Aging's Advisory Council. Pearl's generous spirit has enhanced the lives of many. Daniel D. Cantor, of Tamarac, is one of Broward County's leading Jewish community leaders. Daniel has been active in countless Jewish organizations, including the Jewish National Fund, Israel Bonds and United Jewish Appeal. He was indispensable in the campaign to help resettle Russian Jewry in Israel and in the United States. Marie Antoinette Capazzi, of Plantation, has served as Social Director for the Senior Club of Plantation for over 20 years. Marie has also worked with the Red Cross distributing food to the needy. Because of her service to the community, May 11, 1983 was declared Marie Capazzi day by the city of Plantation. Marie was also acknowledged as 1996 Citizen of the Year by the Plantation Elks Club. Chris Franklin, of Pompano Beach, has been a tireless advocate for the elderly. Chris has been extremely active with the Florida Silver- Haired Legislature to insure that the rights of the elderly are protected. Later this year Chris will be a delegate to the National Congress of Silver-Hairs. Rickey Pine Garber, of Tamarac, works to improve relations between seniors and the police. She is involved in several organizations including Seniors and Lawmen Together and the Citizens Observation Patrol. Rickey also works with the Area Agency on Aging assisting both seniors and the young who are experiencing financial and social distress. Nat Geier, of Sunrise, volunteers his time to several organizations throughout Broward County. As a result of his efforts in the Area Agency's Seniors for Seniors Dollar Drive, Nat has raised over $700 every year. In addition, Nat was instrumental in securing the first computers for Piper High School and Village Elementary. David J. Mears, of Coral Springs, was instrumental in the founding of the city of Margate. David has been called the founding father of Margate because of his active role in developing the eastern section of the city. He has served as honorary mayor of Margate and is presently president of the Gold Coast Chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks. Angelo Quatrociocchi, of Cooper City, is an active volunteer at Memorial Manor, a residential home for seniors. His activities include transporting residents to activities, assisting with meals, and playing his accordion and harmonica for the residents. Angelo continued to volunteer even after his wife, Josephine, died. His commitment to the community is unwavering. Herman Small, of Hallandale, is an advocate for the community's elderly. For the past 10 years, Herman has been developing fundraising concepts for the Area Agency on Agency. Herman also educates the community's elderly on legislation that directly affects them. Bertha Walker, a resident of Broward County for over 50 years, devotes her time to improving the community. She chaperoned local students on field trips and has been recognized by the YMCA for her dedication to the community's youth. Her contributions to the area's youth are appreciated by all. Benjamin Wermiel, of Coconut Creek, has been contributing his time and energy to the community for 15 years. As secretary of the elderly interest fund, Benjamin raised $400,000 for the organization's Medivan Program. Benjamin is also the Broward coalition's representative to the Florida Health Care Campaign which seeks to provide universal health care to all Floridians. Benjamin has improved the lives of many residents in Broward County. Florida and Broward County are fortunate to have these inspiring senior citizens who give so much to their communities. I congratulate them today and wish for them many more productive and healthy years.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess so Members might meet our friend from Colombia.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce to the Senate the President of the Colombian National Senate, Senator Luis Londono.