Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I strongly concur in the statements that have been made by each of my colleagues this morning. This is the time for public officials in Washington to stop the procrastination, bickering, the confrontation, to start the process of governing for the benefit of the people of America. I am encouraged from reports this morning that indicate that we may be on the verge of reaching a resolution to the budget for fiscal year 1996. I deplore the fact that it took until the 25th of April to reach a budget resolution which should have been realized prior to October 1st of 1995. But later is better than never at all. Mr. President, we are at a historic moment in terms of our opportunity to balance the Federal budget. The leadership of the House and the membership of the House want a balanced budget. The same is true in the Senate. The President wants a balanced budget. We are on the verge of producing the first balanced budget that we have had in almost two generations. Missing this premier opportunity, muddling along into the election beyond, is a sure path for continued public disdain of our commitment and our ability to achieve an important national purpose. It would be a tragedy to let this opportunity drift away. In some ways it would be more than a tragedy, it would be a disgrace and an outrage. It is for exactly the avoidance of those negative perceptions that the Centrist Coalition was formed, to see if it was not possible to put together a reasonable plan to bring our Federal budget into balance and to keep it there and to do so on a bipartisan basis. One of our principles was that if you are going to have sustained Government programs at the domestic or foreign level, that it is critical that they be premised on a foundation of bipartisanship. Let me just mention what I think are a few of the principal aspects of this Centrist coalition budget. The budget is honest. It brings us into balance with a reasonable annual movement towards that balance. It does not postpone all the tough decisions to the last year. The budget also sustains this balance by making critical structural changes. It will help assure we stay in balance into the future. This balanced budget will produce broad economic benefits for the Nation. Virtually every economist agrees that if we can have a balanced budget plan that we are committed to realizing that it will result in noticeably lower interest rates over the next period than those interest rates will be if we fail in this effort. That will mean every month in the wallets of American families additional dollars that they can spend--rather than spending on interest--for their home mortgage. It will mean for young people coming out of colleges, universities, that they will have lower interest cost student loans. Virtually every American will benefit by this contribution. Mr. President, just briefly in the moments left to me, let me say that I particularly worked on the section of this budget plan that relates to Medicaid. It is a complicated area, which our recommendations will be explained in more detail later. But basic principles that will be preserved in this important area include the safety net for low-income and elderly Americans. A continuing Federal role in assuring that safety net is maintained. But substantial additional flexibility is given to the States in order to innovate and to assist in realizing the significant savings which we think are possible in this program. This balanced budget will help preserve access to health coverage to 37 million Americans. It gives Medicaid a shot in the arm--while at the same time reducing costs by $62 billion dollars. Some reformers have seized upon this budget debate as a way to abolish the Federal role in Medicaid. Others steadfastly defend the status quo, saying that Medicaid needs no medical attention whatsoever. Both approaches are wrong. Medicaid doesn't need major surgery. But it could use some preventative care to continue its efforts into the 21st century. Our budget does that. Several months ago, the National Governors Association proposed a bipartisan plan to tend to Medicaid's infirmities. We share many of the Governors' goals. First, we agree that mending Medicaid--and balancing the budget-- depend on using aggressive therapy to control rising Medicaid costs. Our plan's savings will go a long way toward making Medicaid more efficient and balancing the budget. We agree that one of the best ways to reduce costs is to give states more freedom to design, create, and innovate. In our plan, that means no more waivers for managed care, home care, and community based care. It means repeal of the Boren amendment. And it means dozens of other measures to encourage flexibility and state innovation. Like the Governors, we feel strongly that the basic health care needs of our Nation's most vulnerable populations must be guaranteed. That means protecting the Federal-State partnership that has so successfully provided for the health care needs of low-income Americans. But we take this goal one step further. Thanks to Medicaid, 18 million children have access to hospital, physician care, prescriptions, and immunizations. We can't throw that away. So even though the Governors' plan scales back coverage to children under 133 percent of the poverty line, we maintain Medicaid's historic guarantee to cover children under 185 percent of the poverty line. Our children deserve healthy and safe lives. We also agree with the Governors that Medicaid must lose its addiction to old budgets and old demographics. Most of the Medicaid officials who created the program are no longer around. But their 30- year-old statistics and funding formulas still serve as the basis for Medicaid policy decisions. In this new era, we must adopt new thinking. Medicaid funds should follow health care needs. States must be protected from unanticipated program costs resulting from economic fluctuations, changing demographics, and natural disasters. Because our centrist plan is all about balancing the budget, we adopt an additional principle. We protect the Federal Treasury from Medicaid fraud and abuse. In the 1980's Medicaid created the Disproportionate Share Hospital [DSH] Program to assist hospitals with large numbers of low-income patients. Some States saw this as a way to reduce their contributions to Medicaid. Others saw it as an opportunity to transfer Federal Medicaid dollars to other priorities. As a result of this abuse, Federal Medicaid costs exploded. Congress implemented aggressive defensive therapy and cracked down on Medicaid abuse. Yet incredibly, Congress is now considering the repeal of those laws we passed to crack down on abuse. That won't help to control costs. It won't help us balance the budget. It is high time for us to produce the balanced budget the American people deserve. For more than 20 years, Washington has been asleep at the wheel while the Federal budget has headed over the cliff. Let's stop being modern-day Rip Van Winkles. Now is the time for reasonable, bipartisan compromise. Now is the time to balance the budget. So, Mr. President, I conclude by commending my colleagues who have joined in this effort who have provided such effective leadership. We do not purport that this is Biblical. This is the product of men and women, fair-minded, trying to develop a compromise in the best traditions of democratic government. We hope that this will serve to stimulate others to move forward and bring a plan for a balanced budget to the American people in 1996. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue of illegal immigration is an extremely serious one for America. Few places are as affected by that issue as my State of Florida. My State represents approximately 6 percent of the population in the United States. It is estimated that 10 percent to 15 percent of the illegal aliens who are in the United States are in the State of Florida. Within the last 4 years there were periods in which over 4,000 persons from Haiti alone entered into small boats in order to get to the United States, primarily through Florida, and would have added further to that population of illegal aliens. Mr. President, my concern, therefore, is not that this Congress should deal with this subject. It is important, critical that we do. Rather, I believe there are at least two areas of this bill through which a serious fault line runs. This is not Shakespearian theater. This is structural engineering. The first of those fault lines, and the two are related, is that while this bill has as its label, illegal immigration, S. 1664 says in its heading, in its title, ``To Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to Increase Control Over Immigration to the United States by Increasing Border Patrol,'' et cetera. The focus of this bill is illegal immigration. The first fault line, however, is that within this bill on illegal immigration there are major provisions which affect legal aliens, either totally affect legal aliens or substantially affect legal aliens. To pick one specific example which I hope will be dealt with before we complete action on this legislation, this bill that purports to deal with illegal immigration would change the conditions under which persons who are in this country with a legal status are allowed to adjust that legal status. Since the early 1980's, the United States has recognized the special circumstances of Cubans coming to the United States and have had special provisions in which persons who were here legally of Cuban nationality can adjust their status. This bill, which purports to deal with illegal aliens would substantially restrict that right. This is only available to persons who are here legally. I cite that as just one example. Other examples of the mixture of illegal and legal go to the fact that by changing the eligibility standards for legal aliens, substantial additional costs are going to be imposed upon the communities and States in which these aliens live. So the second faultline in this legislation are significant unfunded mandates which are being imposed upon States and local communities. It is ironic, Mr. President, that the very first bill introduced in this Congress, S. 1, was a bill which had as its title the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Let me read from the statement of the purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The purpose of this act, which is now Public Law 104-4, the fourth bill that became law as a result of actions of the 104th Congress, the purposes of the act are: To strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal governments; 2, to end the imposition in the absence of full consideration by Congress of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal funding in a manner that may displace other essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities . . . 6, to establish a point of order vote on the consideration in the Senate and the House of Representatives of legislation containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates without providing adequate funding to comply with such mandates. Those were some of the purposes that led this Congress to adopt as its fourth legislative action of the 104th Congress the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. When the Senate was debating this proposal, Mr. President, the majority leader, Senator Dole, stated, Mr. President, the time has come for a little legislative truth in advertising. Before Members of Congress vote for a piece of legislation, they need to know how it would impact the States and localities they represent. If Members of Congress want to pass a new law, they should be willing to make the tough choices needed to pay for it. That statement by our majority leader was an important part of this Senate's determination to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. So what are we about today, Mr. President? We are about legislation which would impose massive unfunded mandates on States and local communities in America. The Congressional Budget Office has, in a very limited time, reviewed this legislation's very broad sweeping impact on State and local governments. They have determined that this bill does, in fact, meet the $50 million threshold for unfunded mandates procedures due to the bill's requirements governing just two items: Birth certificates and drivers' licenses. Thus, although the bill would impact literally hundreds of programs run by State and local governments, just these two relatively minor programs reach the threshold of $50 million, which under the legislation constitutes unfunded mandates. With respect to the all-encompassing deeming requirements imposed on hundreds of Federal, State, and local programs in this legislation, the Congressional Budget Office says, Given the scope and complexity of the affected programs, however, the Congressional Budget Office has not been able to estimate either the likelihood or magnitude of such cost at this time. These costs could be significant, depending on how strictly the deeming requirements are enforced by the Federal Government. On another issue, the Congressional Budget Office has stated under the terms of means tested State and local tested programs, It is likely that some aliens displaced from Federal assistance programs would turn to assistance programs funded by State and local governments, thereby increasing the cost of these programs. While several provisions of the bill could mitigate these costs, CBO states that such tools would be used only in limited circumstances in the near future. At some point, State, and particularly local governments, become the providers of last resort, and as such we anticipate that they would face added financial pressure on their financial assistance programs. Mr. President, this bill fails to meet the majority leader's truth- in-advertising test. It is not strictly an illegal immigration bill, and it does have serious financial implications for States and local communities. We are preparing to vote on a bill that we truly have not the foggiest idea what the impact will be on our constituents. They certainly are extremely concerned and strongly supportive of resolving this issue of unfunded mandates. I have a letter dated April 16 from the National Conference of State Legislatures. This letter is also joined by the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities. This letter urges all Senators to support a point of order against S. 1664, the illegal immigration bill, based on the violation of the unfunded mandates bill. This so states--the President of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the President of the National Association of Counties, and the President of the National League of Cities--``This constitutes a critical test of your commitment to preventing cost shifts to an unfunded administrative burden on State and local governments.'' This is what the leaders of State and local governments have described as the seriousness of the issue of unfunded mandates raised by this bill. During the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill, Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and Gov. Bob Miller of Nevada wrote in a letter, dated March 6, on behalf of the National Governors' Association, expressing concern about ``administrative provisions contained in the bill,'' which, if enacted, ``could result in an unfunded mandate being passed on to State and local governments.'' This concern of Governors Thompson and Miller has, of course, now been confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office. Moreover, the National Association of Public Hospitals wrote to all Senators on April 12, noting, ``This bill will lead to an increase in the number of uninsured patients and exacerbate an already tremendous burden of uncompensated care on public hospitals.'' This gets to another point that I offered in the unfunded mandates bill, which seemingly has gone unnoticed by the Congressional Budget Office, despite a vote of 93 to 6. That was a provision, which is now part of the Public Law 104-4, which states that any Federal reductions in ``reimbursements to State, local, and tribal governments for the costs associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to emergency health care, education, or criminal justice,'' constitute part of the potential new obligations imposed upon States and are subject to the point of order as unfunded mandates. In numerous ways, S. 1664 does exactly that. It eliminates Federal reimbursement to the States, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by about $7 billion. I repeat, it eliminates Federal reimbursement to the States by about $7 billion over the period 1996 to 2002, a substantial portion of which is in health care costs associated with immigrants. In short, this bill, once again, creates an enormous unfunded mandate on State and local governments. Once again, I repeat the quote from the Congressional Budget Office: ``Given the scope and complexity of the affected programs, however, CBO has not been able to estimate either the likelihood or magnitude of such costs at this time. These costs could be significant, depending on how strictly the deeming provisions are enforced by the Federal Government.'' Mr. President, while the CBO has been unable to do a comprehensive report, the National Conference of State Legislatures has undertaken that task. Our colleagues in the State capitals across the Nation, legislators, as are we, who administer these programs we are talking about today, have assessed what the impact will be on States. Although they were, like the Congressional Budget Office, limited in the time available to complete this analysis, the National Conference of State Legislatures developed a very conservative cost estimate for just 10 of the affected programs. This study did not include Medicaid and 40 other Federal means-tested programs. What did the National Conference of State Legislatures find? First, after contacting more than 10 States, States of varying size, they concluded that ``regardless of the size of the immigrant population, all States and localities will have to implement these unfunded mandates.'' In other words, the bill impacts a city in Iowa or Delaware just as it might in Los Angeles, CA, or Miami, FL. The bill requires all Federal, State, and local means-tested programs to have a new citizenship verification bureaucracy imposed upon them. All programs, regardless of whether the new bureaucracy costs exceed benefits, regardless of whether it imposes a very large unfunded mandate on State and local programs, all programs are impacted by this bill. What are the estimated costs, even for just the 10 programs which have been studied? According to the NCSL study, ``The cost of these new requirements for 10 selected programs would result in a $744 million unfunded mandate.'' Repeating, ``The cost of new requirements for 10 selected programs would result in a $744 million unfunded mandate.'' The National Conference of State Legislatures adds, ``Of course, if the 40 other programs, including Medicaid, adoption assistance, and the WIC programs, are included, the unfunded administrative burdens on States and localities would substantially increase.'' Mr. President, the NCSL study indicates that unfunded mandates for just 10 programs will be $744 million. Once the other multitude of programs are analyzed, the costs imposed on State and local government could far exceed a billion dollars. It could very well amount to several billion dollars. However, Mr. President, there are no provisions in the pending legislation to reimburse State and local governments for the administrative costs and the cost shifts which will be imposed upon them by this bill. As the majority leader said on January 4, 1995, when we were passing the unfunded mandates bill: We do not have all the answers in Washington, DC. Why should we tell Idaho, or the State of Kansas, or the State of South Dakota, or any other State, that we are going to pass this Federal law and we are going to require that you do certain things, but we are not going to send you any money? So you raise taxes in the local communities or in your State. You tax the people, and when they complain about it, say, ``Well, we cannot help it because the Federal Government passed this mandate.'' So we are going to continue our drive to return power to our States and our people through the 104th Congress. Those were the words of Senator Dole on January 4, 1995. Mr. President, we have now come to a point of decision as to our credibility. When we passed this legislation, as the fourth bill of the 104th Congress, one of the items in the Contract With America, one of the items upon which State and local governments are now making important decisions, which they have believed the legitimacy of our representations that we are no longer going to be casually and in an unstudied way, imposing major costs upon them. Are we now going to be prepared to meet the test? We have a bill which says that it only relates to illegal aliens; yet, an analysis indicates that it clearly has major impacts on legal aliens. Second, we find that a significant part of that impact on legal aliens is to impose significant new unfunded mandates--financial responsibilities--on States and local communities. I do not think that is what we want to do. We have a choice. Clearly, a point of order is now available against this bill. We could end further discussion. I am reticent to raise that point of order because I believe it is important that we pass an illegal immigration bill that will in fact strengthen our ability to protect the borders of America and to assure that our lawful means by which persons can come to the United States are available and are not dismissed, as they have been so frequently in the recent past, by persons who come here illegally. I also am reluctant to raise this point of order at this time because we still have an opportunity to correct this legislation and to remove those provisions which are imposing these mammoth unfunded mandates on States and local communities. We are in a strange parliamentary process, but I hope that even through this byzantine process we will be able to consider those amendments that will be faithful to our commitments not to impose new unfunded mandates in the manner in which we are doing in this legislation upon our citizens at the State and local level. So, Mr. President, my purpose in these remarks is to raise these two important structural defects in the bill--a mixture of impacts on legal aliens, and a bill that is labeled ``illegal immigration'' and the imposition of major unfunded mandates on States and local communities. It is my hope that by raising these issues, it will contribute to reforming this bill in a way that brings a good engineer into the foundation of this legislation, pour some concrete, and strengthen the integrity of this legislation. If that is done, then the unfunded mandate point of order would no longer be available. If that is not done, I want to assure my colleagues that the point of order will be raised because I am committed that we not only strengthen our resolve against illegal immigration but that we also demonstrate our credibility to not impose mammoth unfunded mandates on our State and local governments. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and other material from the National Conference of State Legislatures be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to be recorded as voting no on the continuing resolution. Mr. President, nearly 1 month ago, after passing the 12th continuing resolution, we are now enacting the 13th continuing resolution. At the time we passed the 12th extension of the budget for fiscal year 1995, I said it was the last one that I would support. Mr. President, I am here to keep my word. Frankly, the lack of leadership by this Congress is a national embarrassment. It is nearly 7 months into the fiscal year 1996, and we still do not have five budgets for five of the most important agencies of the Federal Government. This is no way for the world's largest economic entity to manage its resources. It is almost as if the Congress has become addicted to this form of Band-Aid budgeting. When you think about it, there is a correlation between a drug addict's action and those of this Congress. We began this process on September 30, 1995, when we passed the first continuing resolution. I analogize that action on September 30, 1995, as a casual, occasional user of marijuana. As we have proceeded over the days, weeks, and months since then, we have continued to become more and more addicted to this approach, to this avoidance of difficult decisions, to the willingness to say we failed to do it today so we will put it off until tomorrow. Today, Mr. President, we are mainline injecting heroin as we sell ourselves: ``Oh, we only need one more day and we will be able to resolve this impasse.'' We have heard that ``one more day'' so many times. I remember distinctly when we voted on the 12th continuing resolution that the leadership of the appropriations process in the House of Representatives said they were so close to reaching a final resolution that would have carried us through the balance of the fiscal year and avoided the necessity of the 12th continuing resolution, and that failing that small increment to close on a final agreement, now we were going to have to use the period made available by the Easter- Passover recess. That certainly would be a period of time in which we could come to closure on this matter. We failed again. Now, again, we are taking the heroin of a temporary extension of a budget that is more than a year old as a means of avoiding difficult decisions. We are acting, also, Mr. President, like the drug addict who is in a state of denial. We are denying that our failure to reach decisions was having serious effects on Americans. I believe that clearly our actions are having serious effects. They are not just the serious effects on the faceless bureaucrats under which we often wish to assign our failures to act. The fact is that the Band-Aid approach to budgeting has broad ramifications. Just last month when we voted on the 12th continuing resolution, I used examples that have been brought to my attention from my State of Florida. As an example, the Salvation Army in Fort Myers, FL, when I last discussed this case a month ago, I explained that the Salvation Army used funds which were provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to promote food and housing to the homeless. In February 1996, the Salvation Army received its first installment for the fiscal year. In a normal year, that first installment would have been made available in October 1995. This is anything but a normal year. The Salvation Army was expecting they would receive their final allotment of Federal funds in early March. True to form, these funds have not yet been provided. There is only one thing consistent about this year, and that is total inconsistency. On April 10, I visited the Florida State Legislature in its session. The question that many members of the legislature asked me is: When are you going to make up your mind? The less charitable members of the legislature asked the question: Have you lost your mind? Here is our State legislature, trying to prepare a budget for the fourth largest State in the Nation, with many of their important decisions based on a partnership with the Federal Government in health, education, job training, and many other areas. Yet, they do not know what their Federal partner's policy, what the Federal partner's commitment will be to that program halfway through the fiscal year. Mr. President, we have had almost a month to work out this appropriations bill. When I was speaking to the legislature, I apologized for the fact we were so negligent in performing our work. I gave them hopeful assurances that we would soon end this too long impasse. Again, today, for the 13th time we are passing a continuing resolution putting off the decisions, putting off the commitment to shape up and get sober, put it off until another day, until we need another injection. Mr. President, this continuing resolution is passed by a voice vote. This Congress has reasserted its addiction and that it cannot be expected to go cold turkey. The 13th continuing resolution will pass with one less vote than the 12th, and I hope if we have a 14th, I hope it will pass with substantially fewer votes than the 13th, and finally we will end this process of procrastination, delay, indecision, and pass the consequences on to the American people. We cannot deny that this Congress is addicted to Band-Aid budgeting and that there are not serious ramifications to these actions. We must stop this cycle of dependency and face up to the difficult decisions which are ours. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to be recorded as voting ``no'' on the continuing resolution.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a week ago today the last of the United States troops who had been sent to Haiti came home. These brave soldiers, as well as others from countries around the world, helped bring enormous changes to that troubled nation, that troubled neighbor of the United States. Last Tuesday's withdrawal provides us an opportunity to reflect upon what has been accomplished, what is left to be done, and what special role the United States--and particularly those of us who have a responsibility in the National Government of the United States--will play in this next series of chapters of the nation of Haiti. There has been considerable attention focused on the problems that remain in Haiti, and any observer would admit that there are very substantial challenges yet to be overcome in that nation. But I believe that an analysis would also require some comparison of what is the circumstance in Haiti today, in April of 1996, as compared to the recent past. Let us take the period of 1993. Haiti in 1993 was a scene of anarchy and lawlessness. Haiti's military dictatorship ruled by machete. There had been an estimated 3,000 political killings per year during the reign of terror of the military dictatorship. I remember, Mr. President, visiting a Catholic church in downtown Port-au-Prince where a Government official had been removed from a mass in front of his terrorized family and friends, taken into the street, and summarily executed. A few weeks later, with a delegation from the United States, I had the honor of placing a wreath at the point at which that brave citizen of Haiti gave his life. For that action and others, I was declared persona non grata and was not allowed to reenter Haiti as long as the military dictatorship was in control. Haiti continues as a violent society. It has been a violent society since the establishment of the republic, the second republic--second only to the United States of America--in the Western Hemisphere. But since the arrival of United States troops and other international military and civilian participants in an effort to restore democracy to Haiti, 30,000 weapons have been removed from the streets. Today there is the fledgling beginnings of civilian law enforcement and a judicial system. In 1993, there was no independent law enforcement capability in Haiti. Law enforcement was an adjunct of a corrupt military. There was no semblance of an independent judiciary. The judiciary was subservient to the autocratic military dictatorship. While there is a long road to travel to bring Haiti to a mature justice system, the first steps have been taken. In 1993 and again in 1994, thousands of refugees left Haiti headed for the United States in man-made rafts. Mr. President, 25,600 persons were rescued at sea during the first half of 1994 alone--25,600 persons rescued at sea during a 6-month period. Countless others were less fortunate. They died of dehydration or were eaten by sharks. After the United States-led operation, the flow of refugees from Haiti has plummeted. In 1995, the Coast Guard intercepted only 5 percent of the number that had been intercepted in 1994, the first 9 months of 1994 having been under the rule of the military regime. The total numbers intercepted in 1995 were 1,204 individuals. On democracy, Haiti has been an independent Republic with the pretense of democracy for 192 years. But during the first 191 of those 192 years, there has never been in the history of the country a transition of power peacefully from one democratically elected President to a successor democratically elected President--191 years in which the democratically elected President was either toppled by a military regime, beheaded, forced into exile, or in some other manner involuntarily relinquished political responsibility and another, often nondemocratically elected, successor took his place. In February of this year, for the first time, that historic event occurred. President Aristide voluntarily, peacefully, pursuant to the Haitian Constitution, transferred the power to the new President. The United States, during an equivalent period of time of our history as a Republic, had 40 peaceful democratic changes of administration. This was the first time that had occurred in the history of Haiti. So, Mr. President, as we talk about the things yet to be done, I think we as a democratic nation, we as a nation which has had a long and intimate history with Haiti, we as a nation which decided that it was intolerable to have old-style military autocratic regimes using their power of the machete, power of the sword, and power of the gun in order to displace a democratically elected government, we who are willing to organize the international community in an effective effort to restore democracy to Haiti, I think should take some pride in the changes that have occurred and the steps, beginning though they may be, toward respect for human rights and democracy in Haiti. But much remains to be done. Since Operation Restore Hope, the United States troops and their civilian counterparts have given the people in Haiti the chance to rebuild their country. Some of the things that remain to be done include poverty and unemployment, which continue to plague the Haitian people. The estimates are that unemployment now is in the range of 80 percent plus. With an uncertain future, the Haitian people lack a sense of optimism for what the future holds for themselves and their children. International investors have been wary about returning to Haiti and continuing the rebuilding of the economy. I applaud those of my colleagues who are dissatisfied with actions that have occurred in Haiti such as the limited investigation of some of the political killings. We must insist upon continued progress in this area. This Congress and this Federal Government have special responsibilities to help the Haitian people maintain their momentum toward democracy and respect for human rights and an improved economic future. Some of the things that are particular responsibilities of this Congress include a role to play in training the new Haitian Parliament, the first Parliament that truly justifies the characterization of being an independent legislative branch in the history of the Republic of Haiti. The Haitian police force needs continued guidance. We have assisted in selecting and training some 5,000 Haitian police officers who will be the beginnings of an independent police presence in that nation. It is like having a police force made up of 5,000 rookie police, each with approximately 4 months of training before being placed on the streets. We now have a role to play in the maturing of that police force, the development of a leadership cadre, the development of a culture of how a police force maintains itself in that democratic society. Probably the most difficult task that we face is in assisting the Haitian people in the revitalization of their economy. We must work with President Preval, and we must assure that there is a movement toward a marketplace, privatized economy in Haiti. For too long the Haitian people have suffered under an economy which has been highly centralized, highly socialized, and enormously corrupt and inefficient. The Haitian Government must also work with international financial institutions to create a climate that will make it again receptive for foreign investment. President Aristide established the goal of Haitian economic progress which was to move from misery to poverty with dignity. The Haitian people should have a friend and partner in the United States in that road that they have yet to walk. Mr. President, a concern that I have at this juncture is the ability of the United States to build on the progress that has been made and to assist the Haitian people in overcoming the challenges that still remain. It has become bogged down in domestic partisan politics, and we have been less constructive than we need to be in assisting our neighbors in Haiti. We have wasted valuable energy and time trying to either establish the grandeur of the gains that we have made or to point out each shortcoming. As difficult as those shortcomings may be, they have been given a proportion which is out of relationship to the totality of the circumstances in Haiti. Both the Congress and the administration, both Republicans and Democrats, have some legitimate opportunity to share in the successes that have been achieved in Haiti and to accept the responsibilities for the future. We will do a disservice to the United States ability to influence the progress and future of a country which is important enough to us that we have just invested almost $2 billion and the lives of thousands of U.S. uniformed and civilian personnel, and we will have lost the opportunity to demonstrate our serious commitment to assisting a country which is trying to go through some of the most difficult transitions--from tyranny to democracy, from anarchy to a civilized society, from misery to poverty with dignity. Those are our challenges. Those challenges are only going to be met if we do it on a bipartisan basis. This Senate met that challenge in times past. In 1948, when many felt it would be impossible for a divided Government--with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat who appeared to be vulnerable and therefore should be exploited by emphasizing differences--men of the stature of Senator Arthur Vandenberg recognized that the American national interest was in unifying behind policies that would serve our Nation's need to constrain the expansion of communism. We followed the enlightened leadership of Senator Vandenberg, and now, 50 years later, we see the fruits of that policy by the collapse of the Soviet Union and our ability, through almost a half a century of bipartisan commitment to that policy, to have avoided the need to use nuclear power and an excessive amount of United States military force in order to achieve that objective of the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism. We need to use that example as our standard as we set our policy for Haiti. Mr. President, there are very real consequences if we continue a policy of treating Haiti as a partisan domestic political issue rather than an American foreign policy opportunity. We do not need to ask ourselves what will happen if we allow the progress that has occurred in Haiti to wither. We have already seen what will happen. We will see it again on our beaches with the dead bodies of Haitians who tried but failed to make it to our shores. We will see it at the tarmac of Guantanamo with hundreds of tents of refugees who have been able to survive and are awaiting their fate in limbo as they were just 3 years ago. We are not playing our role today in termination of a constructive American policy toward Haiti. I am concerned that within the Senate we see a blocking of humanitarian assistance which will be critical to this next stage of Haiti's development. Assistance in the form of health care, funding that will be needed to procure essential medical supplies, vaccines, and for the operation of health clinics throughout Haiti is being held up by this Congress. The shutting down of humanitarian programs will exacerbate adverse conditions in Haiti and could contribute to further economic and political instability. Equally disturbing, it has become fashionable to denounce Haiti's efforts to make a transition to democracy. If the question is, were the elections that were held in 1995 a standard of perfection by a mature democracy, the answer is clearly no. If the question is, were they the fairest, most accurate reflections of the opinion of the Haitian people in the 192-year history of that country, the answer is, with as much energy and confidence, yes. We need to build on these successes, and we must do so in a bipartisan manner. I support the efforts of Congress to assist and demand that there be performance, performance in areas such as investigation of political murders. But I also ask us to recognize the reality of the situation. We are asking a government, whose President told us in person-to-person communication in this very Capitol just a few days ago, that his government had reached the point of financial stringency, that it could not pick up the garbage. To now expect that this government is going to have American or Western European standards of sophistication in forensic investigation is to ask what is not going to exist. We must work with the people of Haiti and with their government. If we fail to do so, we will, again, see the kind of pictures that we saw in the very recent past of U.S. Coast Guard ships picking up overladen small wooden boats with refugees reaching out for salvation. We will see, again, the pictures of the butchered citizens of Haiti, like the man dragged from the Catholic church during mass. At that point, we will ask ourselves not whether we scored appropriate political points, but whether we serve the national interest. It is ironic that at the very time Congress is about to turn again to the question of illegal immigration and how to frustrate its imposition on the United States, that we are close to bringing about a crisis on an island which has been the source of so much of that illegal immigration. Clearly, one of the most fundamental things that the United States can do to reduce the amount of illegal immigration is to turn serious attention to assist in the social and economic development of those countries which are the most likely sources of illegal immigration. We have made progress on that front as it relates to Haiti. Illegal immigration is down by over 20 times in the last 3 years. The question is, are we going to lose this momentum or are we going to build on the progress that we have made? During the period of military rule in Haiti, as has been the case for decades previously, Haitians, in a time of desperation, stripped the country's hilly terrain of trees in order to make charcoal for heat and for cooking. Today, actions by the Federal Government and the White House and the Congress threaten to cause a mud slide that will bury the progress that Haiti has made with our cooperation and assistance over the past 2 years. It is our challenge to see that we can plant trees and stabilize the soil of Haiti so that, together, the people of Haiti, the people of the Western Hemisphere, and particularly the people of the nation which has been their longest and truest friend, the United States of America, can look forward to a new century of prosperity, a new century in which at least the people of Haiti have realized the goal of moving from misery to poverty with dignity. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for permission to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize and congratulate a group of 12 inspiring citizens from Broward County, FL. These individuals have each given their time, talents, and love to their communities. On March 8, 1996, the following men and women were selected as the new members of the Dr. Nan S. Hutchison Broward Senior Hall of Fame. Their names have been added to a commemorative plaque housed in the Broward County government building. Shirley Berman, of Pembroke Pines, has been a selfless volunteer for the Memorial Manor Nursing Home by introducing pet therapy to the facility. Ms. Berman also uses her crafting talent to provide materials for various fundraising events. The woolen hats she makes are distributed to premature infants at local hospitals. Majorie A. Davis, of Fort Lauderdale, has made a positive impact on her community as a teacher for 44 years in the Broward County School System. In addition to enriching the lives of her students, she has dedicated her time to many local organizations. Among Marjorie's most recent accolades is the Urban League of Broward County, Inc. Kathleen Wright Award which she earned in 1994. Frank Ford, of Lauderdale Lakes, has shown his willingness to serve his community by forming the Motorola Retirees Alumni after serving with Motorola for 20 years. He has also shown his concern for children by establishing the Kids ID Program, which has photographed over 1,200 children to date. Rubye Haile Howell of Fort Lauderdale, the second school teacher among the electees, has continued her commitment to children long after her retirement. Rubye is the lay leader for the Harris Chapel United Methodist Church and is deeply involved in various organizations in an effort to create unity among people of all ages. Ms. Audrey Millsaps, also of Fort Lauderdale, has served for 13 years on the Areawide Council on Aging, including 2 years as president. She selflessly advances children's issues through the Florida Ocean Science Institute, SOS Children's Village, the Children Services Board, and the Children's Consortium, among others. Her many hours of service are appreciated by all. Dan Pearl has served the people of Sunrise in various capacities and is currently deputy mayor. Over a decade ago, Mr. Pearl implemented a free flu shot program, a service which was not covered by Medicare at the time. He has shown his dedication to seniors and the American Cancer Society, and can occasionally be found bagging groceries at Winn Dixie in order to raise money for the organization. Joe Rosen's dedication to the city of Sunrise and Broward County is far reaching. Not only has he held numerous positions in volunteer organizations, he has been integral in raising over $45,000 for a host of senior organizations throughout Broward. His concern for the safety of his city's streets is exemplified by his role as commander of Citizens on Patrol-Night Crime Patrol. Jean Ross, of Margate, a dynamic member of Broward County's senior community, currently serves as president of the Broward County Council of Senior Citizens. This organization serves seniors by providing them with much needed information and assistance. Jean has also assured that the council's blood drives are successful by working closely with Broward County's High Schools on an incentive program. An exemplary senior advocate and resident of Tamarac, Marc Sultanof serves numerous organizations, particularly in the Kings Point neighborhood. He recently was elected to the Area Agency's Advisory Council, where he serves with distinction, and was appointed as a 1995 delegate to the White House Conference on Aging by Gov. Lawton Chiles. Katherine Thibault is currently serving a second term as a Pembroke Pines city commissioner. As a result of her efforts in the 1994 Area Agency Seniors for Seniors Dollar Drive, Commissioner Thibault helped raised thousands of dollars for senior programs in Broward County. Ms. Thibault is no stranger to volunteer work. Her contributions to the seniors of Broward County have been appreciated by all. Amadeo Trinchitella's efforts have also been substantial. Beside serving the seniors of Broward County, Mr. Trinchitella is a Deerfield Beach commissioner, and has been appointed by Governor Chiles to a 4- year term as commissioner for the North Broward Hospital District. His activities with Century Village have helped to enhance that vibrant senior community. Ms. Eula Williams, of Fort Lauderdale, is involved in Mt. Olive Baptist Church and the Northwest Federated Women's Club. Her activities include tending the sick, visiting nursing homes, and helping the homebound. Her involvement in the Area Agency's Session for Seniors, classes which help Broward's seniors deal with independent living, has enriched the lives of Broward's older residents. Once again, I would like to congratulate these outstanding seniors who have diligently and selflessly given of themselves in order to make Broward County a fine place for all of its residents. The State of Florida and Broward County are fortunate to have residents like these making a difference and setting an example for all.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The State of Florida has produced some of the finest legal minds in America's judicial system. The personification of that standard of excellence is U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King of Miami. As a native of the Miami community, I am honored to be part of the effort to name the Federal justice building in Miami, FL, for Judge King. Judge King's distinguished tenure on the bench has spanned four decades, during which our judicial system has faced some of the most challenging disputes in the history of our Nation. In 1964 Mr. King was appointed circuit judge for the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida. In 1970, President Nixon appointed Judge King as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida. In 1984, he became chief judge of the U.S. district court for the Southern District of Florida. During his outstanding career, Judge King has had more than 200 published opinions. In addition to his contributions to our judicial system from the bench, Judge King has been an effective advocate for improved judicial administration. Judge King served as 1 of 23 members on the Judicial Conference of the United States. He was also a member of the Judicial Counsel of the 11th Circuit Administrative Conference, the Judicial Ethics Committee and the Long Range Planning Committee for the Federal Judiciary, serving all with distinction. While fulfilling his duties, Judge King foresaw the need for new courtroom and administrative facilities to accommodate the growing needs of the district and the law enforcement community. He began contacting community leaders to share his vision. After years of tireless effort, Judge King's vision became a reality. The Federal justice building was built by the city of Miami with city bonds backed by a long-term lease from the General Services Administration. Today, this state-of-the-art facility houses the U.S. attorneys' office and will be home to six district judges, an 11th circuit judge and complete trial and appellate courts. While many community leaders worked to complete the Federal justice building, Judge King was the guiding force behind its creation. This building should be named as a tribute to Judge King for his vision, leadership and effective stewardship of justice.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a little more than an hour ago, the Senate voted for the 12th time in this 6 months of the 1996 fiscal year for a short-term continuing resolution for many of our most important Federal agencies. Mr. President, I voted for that continuing resolution as I have for its predecessors out of a sense of frustration and the absence of any other reasonable alternative. But, Mr. President, I am taking this occasion to announce that will be my last vote for such a continuing resolution because I believe that we are acting in a highly irresponsible and embarrassing--and adverse to the interests of the people of this Nation--manner by the way in which we are conducting the fiscal affairs of this great Nation. When the Congress, or any other entity responsible for spending funds, sets out to enact a budget, one of those important goals of such enactment is to chart the future. The essence of budgeting is to carry out a plan with certain objectives and destinations. Budgets should be the means by which that plan is given life. In a cruel irony, however, Mr. President, a perverse Washington twice has turned budgeting upside down. The current budget process frustrates--even prevents--effective planning and implementation. Instead of reducing uncertainty about the future, our current budget process--the one that we have followed for the last 6 months--enhances uncertainty. How, we would ask, did this happen? We are in the 6th month of the Federal fiscal year, but we have still not approved a budget for nine of the most important departments of the Federal Government and numerous other Federal agencies. Instead of approving an annual budget for these nine Cabinet departments and Federal agencies, Congress has passed now 12 separate continuing resolutions to operate parts of the Government at 75 percent of funding levels for brief periods of time. Mr. President, this is Band-Aid budgeting, and it is a Band-Aid that hurts. These Band-Aid budgets are hurting the very people our Government is trying to help. And just as important, our failure to pass a final--a real--budget for 1996 makes planning difficult, if not impossible, for those charged with carrying out the mission of assisting our people through or with the financial support of the Federal Government. To that lament, some might say, ``So what?'' So what if Government is inconvenienced by an uncertain budget process. So what if bureaucrats have to survive with a certain amount of anxiety, uncertainty, and closely bitten nails. To those who say ``So what,'' I offer the simple truth that the way we are doing business with these Band-Aid budgets is bad business. When managers cannot plan, when contracts cannot be honored, when commitments cannot be fulfilled, that, Mr. President, is bad business. Today I want to highlight just a few examples of the impact of our Band-Aid budgeting. In my State of Florida, we are on the verge of shutting down substance abuse programs. Let me repeat that. If we do not straighten out this budget mess within the State of Florida, there will be a termination of substance abuse programs. It is ironic that possibly in the next few weeks we may be considering the question of whether the United States should punish through decertification certain countries that we consider to be inadequate in their commitment to the fight against the supply of drugs coming into the United States. The irony is that those same countries look north, and they say the reason that there is this supply of drugs is because the United States of America is such an overwhelming and inordinate user of drugs; it creates such an enormous demand for these illegal substances. If we were to send the message to these countries that we are now about to cut off our programs that are intended to deal with the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, they might be inclined to say they should decertify us because we were not using our full efforts in order to deal with this scourge. What is it going to mean in Florida for 150 agencies which are providing substance abuse services--150 agencies and nonprofit groups which depend in whole or in part on Federal funds for their ability to provide these services? The range of services which will be terminated include detoxification, drug rehabilitation for children, adolescents, and adults, in-jail services, and substance abuse prevention. In Florida, 27,000 people a year are referred to detoxification centers. The typical per-day cost of these facilities is $123. If we shut down the detoxification centers, we would have some options--more expensive options. We could send these people to jail. We could send these people to a hospital. If we sent them to a hospital, the average per-day cost is $450 for detoxification services. One way we deal with heroin addiction in this society is methadone treatment. Many people on methadone are able to live a reasonably normal life and hold down a self-sustaining job. What happens when you shut down the methadone programs? People go into withdrawal. The odds go up that these expensive, negative results will occur. There will be a relapse to heroin or other drugs. There will be the use of dirty needles that spread HIV. Jobs will end, and crime will begin. Mr. President, those are some of the consequences in the area of substance abuse treatment, education, and prevention that is about to occur because of the Band-Aid budgeting in which we are engaged. The problem does not, however, end with substance abuse. What about education? In Dade County, Miami, FL, our educators are so uncertain about the next year's school budget that they do not know whether they should retain some 1,000 teachers and aides who are currently providing educational services. What is the reason for this uncertainty? The reason is that these teaching positions are funded by title I Federal grant dollars. These are funds which are used to provide educational services to the most at-risk and to the most at-need children. Dade County received approximately $59 million in title I funding last year. How much will Dade County schools receive next year? Mr. President, your guess is as good as mine because we still do not have a budget. In Fort Myers, I recently visited the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army in Fort Myers, as its counterparts across the country, performs a wide variety of valuable services. In southwest Florida, these services include feeding and housing the homeless, operating a minimum security prison, a small hospital, and offering drug and alcohol treatment programs. To provide these services, the Salvation Army in Fort Myers relies on the Federal Government for up to 35 percent of its budget. Let me give you one example of a problem Salvation Army officials are facing in Fort Myers, FL. In an ordinary year, the Salvation Army will receive emergency food and shelter funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in October. As you are aware, Mr. President, this October was no ordinary October. This has been no ordinary year. As a result of the budget impasse, the emergency funds for food and shelter to the Salvation Army did not arrive in Fort Myers in October. The funds did not arrive in November either. December came and passed; there were no funds--and January. It was not until February that the Salvation Army received the first allotment of its funds which were supposed to have arrived in October. Now the Salvation Army is waiting once again to receive the remainder of its funds for a fiscal year that is now halfway over. Without this money, the services provided by the good people at the Salvation Army in Fort Myers will be severely hampered and the organization may experience a major deficit. In many instances, organizations have not only had to reduce services, but they have had to suspend them altogether. Let me give you another example. This situation was experienced by the Florida Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. The division of vocational rehabilitation awards contracts to nonprofit organizations to provide rehabilitative services to the disabled. For many individuals, these services offer the only chance to become skilled, productive, independent citizens. Due to the Government shutdown, two organizations in Florida which provide these rehabilitative services for disabled citizens, Goodwill and Easter Seals, had to close their doors to the disabled. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. The shutdown caused Goodwill and Easter Seals to close their doors to people who are striving to better themselves so that they can find gainful employment. These are the practical effects to human beings in the communities, consequences of the Band-Aid budgeting in which we have been engaged. Mr. President, I say enough is enough. Twelve times in six months is enough for us to limp along day to day, week to week. This process is having severe, embarrassing, and hurtful consequences on innocent people. Twelve times we have resorted to these short-term extensions. Enough, Mr. President, is enough. Let us commit ourselves to the completion of the 1996 budget at the earliest possible date. Then let us recommit ourselves not to repeat anything like this in 1997 or ever again. Mr. President, enough is enough.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. While it is understood that a significant gap exists in our scientific knowledge about the ultimate ecological and water management needs of the Everglades ecosystem--which necessitates continued detail studies--the framework for restoration and design of major projects for land acquisition, water storage, and restored hydrology are clear. Restoration of one of the largest functioning ecosystems in the world is a massive undertaking. Congress has acknowledged that success will depend on the Federal Government, the State of Florida, and local, regional and tribal interests working in tandem.

Mr. GRAHAM. Historically, we have tried to tame the Everglades by focusing on small parts of the ecosystem without regard to how the whole system works. This has proved to be a mistake. As we have tried to develop or manage parts of the ecosystem separately, the result has been to wreak havoc on the entire ecosystem, thus putting the entire ecosystem in jeopardy. The Everglades is not a set of discreet parts like the limbs of a body but instead is a blood line that circulates throughout the entire ecosystem. The long term viability and sustainability of the ecosystem--whether it is wildlife, urban water supply, agriculture, tourism, recreation activities, or fishing--are all dependent upon the same lifeblood, the Everglades, the River of Grass. Decades of diking, damming and using the Everglades for singular purposes has so endangered the health of the Everglades that in the future the ecosystem may not be available to be used for any purpose.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, can I ask if I might be recognized after the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator Mack and I would like to take a moment to thank Chairman Lugar and ranking member Leahy for their hard work on the 1996 farm bill. We are particularly pleased with the inclusion of provisions that will have a direct benefit to the State of Florida, our growers, and the Everglades ecosystem. First of all, this farm bill will address three problems that have faced Florida growers of specialty crops. Upon enactment of Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, the Federal Crop Insurance Act will be amended to provide for coverage of crops destroyed by insects and disease, expand coverage to all nursery crops and aquaculture, and require the Federal Crop Insurance Act to consider marketing windows when determining whether it is feasible to require replanting during a crop year. Disasters are a way of life for all involved in agriculture. Disaster relief appropriations are an item of the past. The laws to today need to cover all of agriculture to allow recovery after time of great loss. The amendments which were passed go a long way to addressing inequalities in law and definition to allow coverage for major agricultural segments. Multiple weather-related disasters, from Hurricane Andrew to the record number of hurricanes in 1995, clearly illustrated deficiencies in disaster coverage of many agricultural commodities. Many agricultural products such as aquatic species and numerous horticultural products are not clearly defined as being eligible for disaster assistance. Additionally, even though the Federal Crop Insurance Act was passed, many agricultural commodities still do not have crop insurance available and as such can not even recoup planting costs under current guidelines. Changes were clearly needed to allow coverage of all agricultural crops during time of disaster. A tree grown for horticultural purposes should be covered whether it is grown in a port or in rows in the ground. Nontraditional species raised for food purposes should be clearly covered. Acquaculture-raised species--whether for food or nonfood purposes-- should also be covered. Foliage plants are agricultural commodities raised for aesthetic purposes. Tropical fish, while not for food purposes, are clearly raised in aquaculture for aesthetic purposes, and should be covered just as surely as our foliage protection. Many States now find that horticulture and foliage plants have become their No. 1 agricultural commodity. Disasters are likewise not just weather-related events. A rapidly spreading pest or disease can statistically be a greater danger than a hurricane event. definition of disaster for federal crop insurance eligibility The history of natural disasters in Florida has demonstrated the need for the definition of disaster to include events that are not directly weather-related. Beyond a certain level, the devastation of the gypsy moth, citrus canker, or other pests and diseases constitutes a disaster of major scale. The 1996 farm bill will establish a pilot program to have the term ``natural disaster'' include extensive crop destruction caused by insects and disease. definition of agriculture for federal crop insurance eligibility Florida growers of specialty crops also need a definition of agriculture that includes more than just food, fiber and grain. Historically, for disaster purposes, neither aquaculture or nursery crops have been covered. As recently as the December freezes, producers in the Hillsborough County area were told that aquaculture species, such as tropical fish and aquatic plants, were not defined as agriculture. While these species are reared for aesthetic purposes, they are certainly agriculture--as much as any other horticultural production. In-ground plants and trees for the nursery industry were still not covered even after 4 years of negotiation and discussions with Federal Crop Insurance officials in Kansas City. Florida growers are appreciative that this farm bill will expand Federal crop insurance to aquaculture and direct the FCIC to establish a pilot program to allow nursery crops to participate in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. include ``marketing window'' as a criteria for requiring replanting A third problem for Florida growers of winter crops has involved the interpretation of the clause requiring replanting where feasible after disaster destruction. Until this farm bill, the Federal Crop Insurance has not considered marketing windows when making judgments about claims. Given that USDA can consider economics, potential marketing of the product must be considered as an economic factor. As a recent example, a potato crop in Dade County was destroyed. The climate of the county would have permitted the growers to replant and barely get in a crop before that weather became too hot. However, the marketing window and contracts for sale of the product would have been totally nonexistent by the time a long-term crop like potatoes could be raised. The Federal Government required the growers to replant even though no sales of that commodity would have been feasible after the area's marketing period was over. Florida growers raise crops in the dead of winter, and are often double and triple cropping the same land with a succession of commodities to meet very defined and limited marketing windows. I am gratified that the mangers of the farm bill agreed to include our provision requiring the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to consider marketing windows in determining whether it is feasible to require replanting during a crop year. brown citrus aphid research This farm bill also provides authorization of up to $3,000,000 in research funding for the eradication and control of the brown citrus aphid and the citrus tristeza virus. The virus, which is carried by the aphid, poses the most formidable threat in decades to the Florida citrus industry. The citrus tristeza virus, in several forms, has the capability of killing millions of citrus trees in Florida, Texas, and California over the next several years. The language included in this bill will help us provide to the citrus community of our Nation the tools it needs to combat this serious threat. everglades restoration funding The 1996 Farm bill also provides an unprecedented opportunity to further the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem. I yield to Senator Mack.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to commence by stating my deep appreciation to Chairman Lugar and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, for their great consideration of issues that were important to agriculture across America and especially important to agriculture and the people of my State of Florida. Mr. President, as you well know, the State of Florida is a State peculiarly vulnerable to a variety of climatic and other disasters. One of the things that we have tried to do is to learn from those disasters and avoid, where possible, a repetition of previous mistakes, and to bring to the attention of the appropriate decisionmakers steps that could be taken in order to moderate the impact of future adverse consequences. In the last few years, we have had an unusual number of incidents that have impacted Florida agriculture. Hurricane Andrew is the best known, but by no means the only such incident. As a result of that, we have assembled a number of lessons learned, in terms of how American agricultural law for disasters, crop insurance, and other steps that are intended to soften the impact of negative events, could be modified to be more effective and applied to the special agriculture of our State. I wish to thank Senator Lugar, Senator Leahy, and their colleagues for their consideration and for the number of steps that are contained in this legislation that will have that effect. Let me just briefly summarize a few of those provisions. The Federal Crop Insurance Act will be amended by the legislation before us today to provide for coverage of crops that have been destroyed by insect and disease, as well as those destroyed by storm or flood, or other natural conditions. This act will expand coverage to nursery crops and to aquaculture, which have been two of the fastest- growing aspects of American agriculture. It will require that the Federal Crop Insurance Act consider marketing windows when determining whether it is feasible to require replanting during a crop year. To elaborate on that, Mr. President, as you know, much of Florida agriculture is targeted on a winter growing season. There have been instances in which a natural disaster had occurred at the end of that season--let us say, in this month of March, there were requirements that you had to replant, even though by replanting the crops, they would mature in the middle of the summer when the window for our particular agriculture had closed. This will allow the Federal crop insurance administrators to consider the economic feasibility, as well as the agricultural feasibility of replanting a crop that has been destroyed. So, Mr. President, that represents an important set of lessons learned from disasters and now applied to moderate the impact of future disasters. Second, Mr. President, there is an important provision in this legislation that is to avoid what would be not a disaster, but a calamity of global importance, and that is the collapse of the Florida Everglades. The Florida Everglades represent a treasure, which happens to be located within the State of Florida, but has been long recognized as a national treasure since 1947. The second largest national park in the lower 48 States is Everglades National Park. It has been recognized by international bodies, including the United Nations, as an ecosystem of international importance. It is a system that has been in very serious trouble. It is a system, which started thousands of years ago as a unique flow of water, commencing in the central part of south Florida, in a slow incremental process that eventually then led to the area that we now call Florida Bay. It provided one of the most fertile areas for wildlife, plants, and fisheries in the world. It is a system which has been destroyed largely because of its uniqueness. When Europeans came to this region, they looked at the Everglades, and what they saw was a formidable swamp. They saw something that was different than they had known in their previous home. They committed themselves to the goal of turning this unique system into something that was common and pedestrian. For the better part of a century, that effort was pursued with great vigor, and with the support of the people of Florida, and of the Governments of the State and the Nation. It has been in the last 30 years that we have fully appreciated the fact that it was that very uniqueness of the Everglades that gave it its essential value. Also, it was that uniqueness that contributed to the many ways in which the Everglades sustained life, for humans and others, in the south Florida region. So a major effort to save the Everglades has been underway. It has been recognized that that effort would require a partnership, and an important member of that partnership was the Federal Government. The Federal Government has significant interest in the Everglades National Park's national wildlife refuges and national fresh water preserves. The Federal Government also will play a key role in executing those things that will be necessary for the salvation of the Everglades. The people of Florida do not ask the Federal Government to do this singularly, but they ask for a unity of purpose between the National Government and themselves. Mr. President, I am especially pleased to recognize the tremendous step forward that this legislation represents with that goal of ``save the Everglades.'' In this legislation, there is contained a direct entitlement funding for a special Everglades restoration initiative of $200 million. There are also contained various provisions which will encourage the disposition of surplus land, with the proceeds of that disposition to be used for Everglades restoration. One of those provisions could provide up to an additional $100 million for restoration of the Everglades. I want to particularly thank Senator Lugar, who has been especially vocal in his recognition of the importance of the Everglades, and Senator Leahy, who has been a staunch advocate of a whole variety of initiatives contained in this legislation that are designed to recognize the fact that there is no conflict between the economics of American agriculture and the protection of the fundamental environmental resources upon which agriculture depends. I commend both of these colleagues for their outstanding contributions, and there is no place in which this will be more significant or more appreciated than in the contribution toward the salvation of the Everglades. So I wish, Mr. President, to conclude with a joint statement with my colleague, Senator Mack, elaborating on the provisions that are of special importance to our State contained in this legislation, and to conclude with my deep thanks on behalf of the 14 million citizens of my State for what leaders of this legislation have done to prepare us for future disasters and to contribute to avoidance of what would be a disaster of global proportion if we were to lose the qualities of the Florida Everglades.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRAHAM. The Everglades is an extraordinary ecosystem that travels south from the Kissimmee River through the Everglades and down to Florida Bay. The Everglades ecosystem supports south Florida's industries of tourism, fishing, and agriculture and special quality of life of over 6 million residents by providing water supply and recreational activities. The Federal Government has a direct vested interest in the Everglades ecosystem, which houses the Loxahatchee Refuge, and three national parks: Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Park and Biscayne Bay National Park.

Mr. GRAHAM. Specifically, the legislation does the following: Section 506(a) directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to the Secretary of the Interior $200,000,000 of any funds not otherwise appropriated. Sections 506 (b) and (d) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to use the $200,000,000 until December 31, 1999 to conduct restoration activities in the Everglades ecosystem in South Florida. In implementing these sections, the Secretary may rely upon the priorities, programs, projects, and initiatives identified by the Federal South Florida Interagency Task Force. Under Section 506(b)(3), the Secretary of the Interior can conduct restoration activities that include the acquisition of real property interests intended to expedite resource protection. Under Section 506(c) as may be appropriate, the Secretary of the Interior and transfer the restoration funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the State of Florida or the South Florida Water Management District to carry out restoration activities in the Everglades ecosystem. Section 506(e) requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit an annual report to Congress that describes what activities were carried out under the initiative. Section 506(f) also established a special account to be funded by the sale of surplus Federal property in the State of Florida. The special account is to be managed by the Secretary of the Interior to carry out restoration activities. The Secretary of the Interior is limited in his ability to use the special account funds to acquire real property or an interest in real property. The Secretary can use these special account funds for real property acquisition only if the State of Florida contributes or has contributed an amount equal to not less than 50 percent of the appraised value of the real property interest to be acquired. The actual sale of surplus property is to be managed by the Administrator of the General Services Administration. This account will not exceed $100,000,000. And finally, under section 506(g), the Secretary of the Interior is directed to submit a report to Congress that assesses whether any unreserved and unappropriated Federal lands are suitable for disposal or exchange for the purpose of conducting restoration activities in the Everglades ecosystem. Section 506(g) is not intended to amend or supersede any applicable Federal statute that governs Federal land management, exchange or disposal.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here to offer my enthusiastic support as an original cosponsor of Senator McCain's amendment. Mr. President, as a nation, we have always been able to come together in times of crisis--especially in times of war. Despite our sometimes vehement disagreements, we as citizens of this great country have always been able to put partisanship aside when our young men and women are called to fight for democracy. For this--we can all be very proud. But the strength of a nation is displayed not just during war, but also in its aftermath. When the battles have long since raged, and the memories of welcome home parades have faded, it is at this time when our Nation can proudly display its commitment to those who fought the battles to keep this country free--our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, please take note when I say ``Our Nation's Veterans.'' They are not Florida's veterans or Arizona's veterans or New York's veterans. They are our veterans, and we as a nation have a collective responsibility to honor the commitment we made to them. When Members of this honorable body, including my esteemed colleague from Arizona, volunteered to do battle for America's freedom, no one asked what geographic region they came from. That question would have been so insignificant as to border on the absurd. Sadly, after our veterans returned home, and it is our turn to honor our commitments to them--where they live matters a great deal. Mr. President, just last month, the General Accounting Office published a rather startling report. Allow me to highlight a few of the report's findings. The Department of Veterans Affairs has had a system in place for 3 years, known as RPM--Resource Planning and Management--designed to give veterans better access to health care regardless of where they live. While not perfect, the system as designed would go a long way toward equal treatment for veterans. However, despite the time, money, and effort put into designing such a system--VA has chosen not to use it. Between 1993 and 1995, some VA facilities' patient workloads have skyrocketed by as much as 15 percent. At other facilities, patient workloads have decreased by 8 percent. Despite this wide disparity in patient workload change, the VA has used its own resource allocation system to change any given facility's budget by the minuscule total of plus or minus 1 percent. The decision to pay homage to bricks and mortar rather than to our Nation's veterans has its price--and our Nation's veterans pay it. GAO reports that patient workload increases above historical workload are funded at 17 cents on the dollar--so if a veteran moves from New York to Florida--he will get 83 percent less care solely because he moved. That is not right. Surely, though, the VA must have compelling reasons for not acting on the RPM system. Surely, there must be terrible consequences should VA decide to forgo the status quo. Again, sadly--no. VA's justifications for inertia are weak--but here they are. First, VA claims that facility managers will have difficulty in adjusting to the large budgetary changes that would come about should resource allocation become more equitable. Mr. President, isn't adjusting to budget fluctuations what makes for good management, and in this case good government? In a private sector system, the chief executive of the hospital makes budgetary decisions based on forecasting patient workload on an annual basis. Why should we demand any less from the VA? Further, any difficulties VA facility managers have in adjusting to budgetary changes pale in comparison to the difficulties our veterans face as a result of VA's inertia. This seems to me, Mr. President, as a perfect example of the tail wagging the dog. Second, the second justification for failing to treat veterans equally is that VA doesn't understand why some facilities are able to make do with less funding while others require more resources for the same number of patients. VA reasons that until it understands why some facilities are more efficient than others, the agency won't implement a system that achieves fairness. Mr. President, it is a given that facilities which receive more than their share of resources will use all of these resources and facilities which receive less than their share will struggle and make do as best they can--rationing care along the way. But there are breaking points for even the most efficient facilities. And the consequences for these facilities fall squarely on our Nation's veterans and manifest themselves in concrete ways. For instance, a veteran who would normally have to wait 2 weeks to see an orthopedic surgeon may have to wait 6 months to see one should he choose to retire to Florida and Arizona. Or, a veteran who used to get free prescription glasses up North is laughed out of the VA facility down South. Because of this disparity, some veterans are forced to move back home to get the care to which they are accustomed. Others simply give up in despair. Mr. President, we can help to rectify this inequity today. Right now. Our amendment would simply mandate that VA develop a plan for their fair allocation of resources to ensure that veterans having similar economic status, eligibility priority, and similar medical conditions have similar access to care regardless of where they live. And in the end, providing equal care to all our Nation's veterans is what the VA health care system is all about. We as politicians can quibble over such terms as construction projects, resource allocation methodology, and patient workload, but one thing is certain: We all have a stake in honoring our collective commitment to our veterans--and they deserve no less. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the debate that we are having today focuses on the specific issue of community police. I would like, at a later point, to discuss some of my opinions and observations about this particular form of use of police personnel from a recent experience in a specific community in my State of Florida. But as a context of this, I would like to raise the question of what is the appropriate Federal, State, local role in law enforcement? What should be the nature of the Federal Government's participation in our collective efforts to provide security to our homes, our neighborhoods, our States, and our Nation? Let me suggest just three items that I think are important principles for that relationship and for the Federal role. First is that the Federal Government must fulfill its own specific and singular obligations. Mr. President, that sounds obvious. Of course, the Federal Government ought to fulfill its obligations. Unfortunately, there have been too many instances in which that has not been the case and in which other levels of government, therefore, were forced to divert their resources to carry out what otherwise would have been a Federal responsibility. Example: My State is replete with instances in which the Federal Government, through specific agencies, established thresholds of a particular criminal activity which must be passed before the Federal agencies would assume responsibility. It was a Federal crime at a lower level of intensity. But for various reasons, generally having to do with the resources or other set of priorities available to Federal agencies, those agencies would not investigate or prosecute activities unless it reached a particular quantity. This has been particularly true as it relates to drug-related offenses. Unless you were caught with several pounds of marijuana, or significant amounts of cocaine, even though you were subject to Federal investigation and arrest and prosecution, you, in fact, were not. So, therefore, it became the obligation of the local law enforcement agencies to spend their resources in doing what should have been a Federal obligation. What makes this particularly vexing is that these prosecution standards are not evenly applied across the Nation. So that one community in America receives a different level of Federal law enforcement support than does another. I think those differences are intolerable and that one of the first steps in the Federal-State-local partnership ought to be that the Federal Government would meet its responsibilities and do so on an evenhanded basis across America. Second, I think the Federal Government has an important role to play in assisting in the coordination of law enforcement agencies. The Federal Government has some natural characteristics that lead it to be an important partner, if not the first among equals, when there are efforts to bring several law enforcement agencies together. The examples that have been used in areas of drug enforcement, where the Federal Government has, through leadership and through financial incentive, encouraged States and local communities to collaborate more effectively, has served a very salutary function. A third area in which the Federal Government has a role to play is to encourage innovation and dissemination of best practices in law enforcement. So that if a particular community engages in an activity which has demonstrated its effort for efficacy, I think the Federal Government has a role in spreading that best practice as rapidly as possible to other communities which can benefit by that. Mr. President, left out of this list of what I think are appropriate Federal roles is for the Federal Government to become involved in a general, nondirect form of assistance to State and local law enforcement. I do not believe that this is an appropriate role for the Federal Government, and that is a ditch into which we have fallen before and I fear are about to fall again. Law enforcement is a State and local responsibility, and it should be the primary responsibility of the citizens at the State and local level to be charged with the establishment of priorities and direction, and to provide the financing for that level of law enforcement which that community feels to be appropriate. This is not by any means a novel suggestion. Fifteen years ago, the President of the United States of America was Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan, in his first years in office, advocated a principle called New Federalism. That principle was built around the idea that there should be an allocation of major responsibilities to levels of government, that we should try to avoid what had become a marble cake in which virtually every level of government was involved in every decision of government. President Reagan advocated, among other things, Mr. President, an advocacy which has, I am afraid, been forgotten in our current debate, that the Federal Government had a particular responsibility for those programs that related to the income maintenance of our citizens and that those programs that might cause a citizen to move from one State to the other seeking higher benefit levels should be nationalized because it was not in the interest of the Nation to have people induced to make those kind of relocations. He was particularly an advocate that Medicaid should be a national responsibility, both because of its tendency to induce people movement but also--and I think this was quite prophetic of President Reagan--that we were going to need to relook at the relationship between Medicaid and Medicare as they served the changing needs of our older population and that we would have a better opportunity to look at that interrelationship if both Medicare and Medicaid were national responsibilities. I believe that suggestion which was made 15 years ago is even more true today. President Reagan also identified some activities that he felt the Federal Government ought to get out of and let the States and local governments assume a greater degree of responsibility. One of those was transportation. Frankly, I hope that in the next few months as we look again at the Federal Government's commitment to transportation that we will relook at some of the wisdom of Ronald Reagan in terms of his recommendation, if that should be more of a State responsibility, particularly in this post-interstate era. But another topic in which President Reagan felt should be turned back to States with less Federal involvement was law enforcement. He felt that law enforcement was a function which was inherently State and local in its character and should be looked to be carried out with limited Federal involvement. He was well aware of the status of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, the program which had provided block grants to States and local communities, a program which lost focus, lost accountability, and finally lost public and political support and collapsed. I am afraid that we are looking more to the failed experience of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act program than we are to the appropriate role of the Federal Government in law enforcement as we consider this proposal to reestablish a Federal Government block grant. I do not believe that a general purpose block grant has an appropriate role in the Federal relationship with State and local governments for the purpose of law enforcement. Mr. President, I indicated that I thought that one of the areas in which there was an appropriate Federal role had to do with the issue of innovation and encouraging best practice and dissemination of those best practices. In the best tradition of that effort to stimulate best practice is what the Federal Government has done as it relates to community policing. Community policing is a concept that in many ways is as old as law enforcement in this Nation, a concept which, for a variety of reasons, waned in recent decades, for which we have paid, I think, a heavy price in the loss of the benefits of a closing relationship between law enforcement personnel and the communities they serve. I believe that this is an ideal example of the Federal Government using its specific target influence to encourage innovation, in this case, the reinvention of a fundamental American idea of the close partnership between the police and the neighborhoods that they serve. It works to reduce crime. Community policing works to create bonds of trust between police officers and their neighborhoods and their citizens. Community policing works because it involves the entire community in the business of increasing public safety. Mr. President, let me share with you an experience that I had on February 10 of this year. For over 20 years I have been taking different jobs every month, and on February 10, 1996, this program brought me to the headquarters of the police department of Port St. Lucie, FL. Port St. Lucie, FL is a town in Florida in the middle Atlantic coast which has been undergoing an explosion of population. It is one of the fastest growing cities in our rapidly growing State. It is a community which has developed a very diverse population. It is a population which is in many neighborhoods, in a very scattered housing pattern; that is, there will be only a few houses with several still yet to be built upon lots in a particular block. In many ways, it would appear as if Port St. Lucie was not a good candidate for the concept of community policing as many people know it--the policemen on the beat walking from home to home and store to store. Port St. Lucie has received under the crime bill of 1994 $525,000, which has allowed it to hire six new officers and a supervisory sergeant for purposes of implementing its community policing program. The first person I saw upon arriving at the city hall and at the police department of Port St. Lucie was the police chief, Chief Reynolds. I asked him what had been his experience in the first 2 years of implementing community policing in a city with the characteristics of Port St. Lucie, FL. He was extremely enthusiastic, and he listed as some of the things that had made him a believer in the concept of community policing the fact that he had a strong community-neighborhood geographic orientation, that under traditional police patterns, officers were rotated generally on a 30-day basis from one neighborhood to the other. This made it very difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a bond developed between an individual police officer and the citizens for whom that officer was responsible. Community policing was proactive. It had reduced the need for emergency responses in his city because, through community policing, they were dealing with problems while they were still manageable, not before they had become emergencies. There was a new access to public officials and to nonlaw enforcement activities, as the community police officer in many cases served an ombudsman function, intermediary, assisting the citizens not only in meeting their traditional law enforcement needs but also in areas like directing the citizens to the appropriate public works officials to fix up a problem with a street or to a housing code enforcement officer if there was an instance of failure to maintain a home in adequate condition. The community police served to mitigate community problems by dealing with a squabble while it was still a squabble before it had festered into a major controversy. Those were just some of the preliminary concepts of community policing that caused Chief Reynolds to be such a strong advocate. As I spent the day working with the officers of the Port St. Lucie Police Department I experienced some of those concepts in reality. I worked with Officer Joe Diskin through much of my day, and with Officer Diskin we met community members in senior centers. We talked to them about what was happening in their neighborhood, and if there were any problems that we might deal with while they were still at a manageable stage. Part of my day was spent at the Darwin Square Plaza in downtown Port St. Lucie. For years, citizens in that area had been concerned about harassment and about loitering and about allegations that the plaza was being used for drug dealing. Recently, the Port St. Lucie Police Department, utilizing the personnel resources available through the community policing grant, established a substation in the Darwin Square Mall. Within a matter of weeks, there had been a decline in citizen complaints. There had been a decline in assaults, major and minor. There had been an increase in public confidence about using that commercial facility. I spent a considerable amount of my time going from store to store, talking with the owners, with employees, with customers who frequent the mall. In every instance, I received acclaim for what the community policing program had meant in the quality of their lives. Mr. President, community policing is working in Port St. Lucie, FL. It is an ideal example of the Federal Government using its targeted role in the family of Federal-State-local government law enforcement to encourage innovation and the dissemination of best practices. It is not an inappropriate Federal Government intrusion into the State and local responsibility for law enforcement which I fear a return to the LEAA block grant approach would lead us to. When we vote today, we are not just deciding the future of the community policing program and the opportunity that it offers to accelerate this reinvention of a fundamental American idea of the police and the community working together. We are also deciding on the future of the Federal Government's role in law enforcement. I believe in the philosophy of President Reagan that Government will best serve its people if there is a clear understanding of what level of Government is responsible for what activity, and that law enforcement will best serve the needs of the people if it continues to be primarily a State and local responsibility, and that the insertion of a Federal block grant for indeterminate purposes is an inappropriate concept within that philosophy of new federalism and State and local responsibility for law enforcement. Mr. President, we have an idea which is working to make a positive impact on the security of our people. That idea is community policing. We should continue with this idea, as we look for other innovations that the Federal Government can encourage at the State and local government level. But we should become intrusive in terms of the basic responsibility at home for the protection of our neighborhoods and our people. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment which is before us which will keep us on an appropriate path and avoid us slipping into the ditch of an ill-considered, ill-formed Federal role. I urge you to do this. If he were here today, Mr. President, I suggest that President Reagan would encourage us to support this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on this very important issue. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Helms-Burton bill, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which has taken on increased importance as the level of repression has escalated both within and outside Cuba. For 37 years, Fidel Castro has held the Cuban people hostage to his brutal repression and mismanagement. He has brazenly violated their human rights. Since 1992--a year after the collpase of the Soviet Union and its subsidization of Cuba's economy--United States Cuba policy has been based upon tightening the economic embargo around Castro's neck, while at the same time extending the hand of democracy and human rights to the Cuban people. The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 started us down this road. Today's action will accelerate our pace. Our drive to free Cuba from Castro's grip would benefit from the example of an organization whose bravery, selflessness, and unflagging humanitarian spirit deserves recognition on this historic occasion. On February 24, four brave members of Hermanos al Rezkate--Brothers to the Rescue--lost their lives at the hands of a dictator and his brutal regime. They were the victims of a pattern of escalating human rights abuses that previously had been reserved for the citizens of Cuba. This time, Fidel Castro extended his violent reach outside his own airspace. These men knew, when they embarked on their mission, that it involved significant personal risk. But they also believed that the suffering of the Cuban people demanded courage in the face of risk. The brave, tireless, humanitarian acts of Brothers to the Rescue must live on despite the deaths of these brave pilots. Mr. President, their mission must become ours. castro oppresses, the brothers rescue While Fidel Castro has terrorized the Cuban people, Brothers to the Rescue has extended the hand of brotherhood to his victims. Fidel Castro has never hesitated to resort to violence to protect his autocratic rule. Last weekend's incident is a perfect example of that inclination toward violent action. Brothers to the Rescue deplores violence. Their mission is strictly humanitarian. Its leaders receive training at the Martin Luther King Center for Non-Violence in Atlanta. Its leaders speak and practice Gandhi's precepts of nonviolence. They use volunteer pilots to search for Cuban rafters and others in need of rescue. They drop bottled water, protective clothing, and other needed supplies to those refugees. Castro has harassed thousands of Cuban journalists and thousands of nonviolent political dissenters. Recently: July 11, 1995: Cuban police initiate a widespread crackdown on independent journalists; February 16-24, 1996: Castro cracks down on the nonviolent Concilio Cubano, a coalition of 131 prodemocracy dissident groups; and On February 24, Castro murdered four U.S. citizens over international waters. The Brothers have rescued more than 5,000 men, women, and children refugees from the waters of the Straits of Florida. First flight: May 15, 1991. Total flights: Over 1,780. some will accuse brothers to the rescue of being provocateurs To be sure, there were instances where the organization's commitment exceeded its charter. On several occasions, they have penetrated Cuban airspace and dropped leaflets. Two such occasions were: June 1994--returning from Guantanamo Bay, dropped Brothers to the Rescue bumper stickers on Eastern Cuba; July 13, 1995--dropped leaflets on Havana. These were leaflets--their impact on Cuban citizens was the power of their ideas. These actions, however, were taken to provide the Cuban people with information they are badly lacking--information on their basic human rights. Each leaflet reproduced one of the Universal Articles on Human Rights. This is information the Cuban people do not have because the Castro regime refuses to allow a free press, or the free exchange of ideas. making the brothers' mission our own Changes are afoot in Cuba. The best way we can take advantage of those changes and bring democracy, prosperity, and an end of the Castro regime to Cuba is to make the Brothers to the Rescue mission our own. The Brothers are committed humanitarians, They reach out to all people in need. Last week, I had the privilege of meeting with some of the family members and friends of the lost pilots. One of them recounted a story about Mario De La Pena, a 24-year-old Miami resident who had flown with Brothers to the Rescue for several years. Last Christmas Eve, Mario was returning home from a mission when he spotted a man stranded in the water. The man was not a Cuban rafter, but Mario dropped supplies anyway. Mario flew home to join his family for Christmas Eve, but the thought of this man trapped in the Straits of Florida during Christmas haunted him. The next morning, he woke up early and flew back to check on the stranded boater. To his relief, the man was fine. He was soon rescued, and later that day, Mario saw the man on television, jubilant and relieved. Mario's friends tell me that this rescue, and the others he participated in, were among the biggest thrills of his life. The United States must continue to support people-to-people humanitarian efforts to free Cuba. We must continue our support for those non-governmental organizations working to encourage democracy in Cuba. The Brothers rescue people in danger. The determination to rescue Cubans from Castro's enslavement was embodied by Armando Alejandre, who also lost his life on February 24. Armando didn't just look for rafters in the Straits of Florida. He carried food and supplies to Cuban refugees stranded in the Bahamas. And he never passed on an opportunity to criticize the Castro regime for its brutal suppression of rights. The enslaved people of Cuba are in danger of further abuses by the Castro regime. We must rescue them. The fallen Brothers pilots were brave men. They took enormous risks to bring hope to the Cuban people. Another one of last weekend's victims was a young man named Carlos Costa. His sister tells me that he was terrified of the small Cessna he flew for Brothers to the Rescue. The winds in the Straits of Florida violently buffeted his plane and frightened Carlos and his passengers. Yet he volunteered to fly his rescue plane every week. He flew on Christmas and other holidays. We must also be willing to take risks to hasten Castro's fall from power. We need a tougher, more ambitious Cuba policy. The Brothers were tireless, searching every mile of the Straits of Florida for Cuban rafters. Some of the most determined were those pilots who had once been rafters themselves. Pablo Morales was one of those pilots. He fled Cuba on a raft in 1992 and quickly became an active volunteer in Brothers to the Rescue. He returned to help others on February 24--Castro sentenced Pablo Morales to death in these same Straits of Florida. We must be as vigilant as Pablo was. We must not rest until we have searched for every possible way to force Castro from power. seizing the day--more pressure on Castro Fidel Castro has once again shown that he is a brutal dictator. We must reiterate our commitment to ending his stranglehold on Cuba. How? There are three ways: First, enact Helms-Burton. This will tighten the economic chokehold on Castro, and sharpen his isolation from his own people. This will continue the work of the Cuban Democracy Act, which began our effort to sanction and isolate the Castro regime with one hand, and reach out to the Cuban people with the other. Helms-Burton will help us in our goal of building democratic sentiment among the Cuban people. Second, work with our allies to bring international pressure to bear on the Castro regime. Last month, I visited Chile to assess the shape of United States- Chilean relations. And though Chile maintains diplomatic relations with the Castro government, I was pleased to return with a firm commitment that Chile will support the U.N. resolution condemning Castro's human rights abuses. Third, assess our preparedness for dealing with Castro in the future. We must maintain a clear understanding of what our objectives are: To support the legitimate aspirations of the Cuban people to replace Fidel Castro with a democratic, human rights-friendly government that brings about the political and economic reconstruction of Cuba. In the future, we cannot afford to wait 48 hours to issue a response. That is an unacceptable delay. Our Government needs to develop an anticipatory stance. We need contingency plans that can be implemented swiftly and judiciously. We must be committed to a response which is proportional to the offense. As the Helms-Burton and other sanctions take hold, we must anticipate the potential for further escalation of attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests. This means making certain that our borders are secure from Castro's terror. I continue to be concerned about incidents such as that which occurred in 1994, when a Cuban defector landed a Cuban military plane on the United States naval station near Key West, FL. He landed that plane unchallenged. Castro has made repeated threats against a major nuclear power facility in the southern portions of my State. We must expand our efforts through television and Radio Marti to reach out to the people of Cuba. Mr. President, this past weekend, the remaining members of Brothers to the Rescue led another mission in the Straits of Florida. This time, their goal was not to rescue but to celebrate the memories and brave acts of those four fallen pilots. As they have for the past 5 years, the boats and planes dispatched on this mission encountered tremendous obstacles. Mother Nature greeted them with rough seas, black skies, pounding rain, and fierce winds. But when the flotilla stopped to lay wreaths and hold religious services in memory of their fallen colleagues, the black clouds disappeared. For a moment, the Sun came out and shone down on the boats gathered below, as if to smile upon their mission. Mr. President, for the last 5 years, Brothers to the Rescue has been a ray of light in the black clouds hovering over the Cuban people. If we are to turn that ray of light into permanent sunshine, the United States must salute their mission by making it our own. I urge my colleagues to do that by supporting the Helms-Burton Cuba sanctions bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there is language within S. 652 which requires all must carry challenges filed with the FCC to be resolved within 120 days. Let me further state that broadcast stations are important sources of local news, public affairs programming, and other local broadcast services. This category of service will be an important part of the public interest determination to be made by the Commission when deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall be granted by the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast signals from being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable television systems and those providing cable services, we must recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and regulations.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon on behalf of my colleague Senator Mack and myself, the Senate was asked to consider, by unanimous consent, S. 1463. It is my understanding that unanimous consent has now been granted. Mr. President, I rise to urge the immediate adoption of S. 1463, a bill that advances fairness for American farmers in crisis. The bill, which I introduced last December on behalf of myself and Senator Mack of Florida, would make it easier for seasonal industries, such as winter vegetable growers, to seek relief under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974. Sections 201-204 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President, after an investigation and determination by the International Trade Commission, to withdraw or modify concessions or impose duties for a limited period of time on imports of like or directly competitive articles. Section 202(c)(6) defines ``domestic industry'' as the producers as a whole of the article or those producers whose collective production of the article constitutes a major portion of the total domestic industry, including flexibility to define the industry as a limited geographic area. During early 1995, the domestic winter tomato industry sought relief for injury resulting from surges of imports of Mexican tomatoes. The International Trade Commission, viewing the domestic industry as nationwide and year-round, denied relief. In its opinion, the ITC recognized that perishable agricultural products have limited marketability. Page I-12 of the opinion states: The perishable nature of fresh-market tomatoes precludes the interchangeability of tomatoes harvested and marketed at different times of the year. Given that a fresh-market mature-green or vine-ripe tomato harvested in any month would not be suitable for consumption after about three weeks, arguably a tomato harvested in one month could not be substituted for a tomato harvested a month later. Nonetheless, the ITC determined that, under the statutory definition, the appropriate domestic industry included all growers and packers of fresh tomatoes during the entire calendar year. This legislation is intended to facilitate a different result by the ITC in cases with facts similar to those presented in the case filed by the winter tomato growers. If this legislation is enacted, industries such as the winter tomato industry would be deemed to be a separate industry under the modified definition of a domestic industry. Currently, seasonal growers may be considered to be part of an industry that grows, ships, and sells during an entirely different time during the year. For example, fresh tomato growers in California grow, harvest, and sell during the late spring, summer, and fall, while those in Florida do the same thing in the late fall, winter, and early spring. Quite literally, while one group is in business, the other is not. While the product may be the same, it is a fact that the market, the competition, and the trade involved are totally separate. S. 1463 would modify the definition of domestic industry in section 202 cases involving perishable agricultural products. In those cases, the ITC would be authorized to define the industry to include only domestic producers who produce the product during a particular growing season if two things are proven. First, the domestic producers must sell all or almost all of the production during that growing season. Under this requirement, however, sales of a perishable agricultural product during the weeks immediately following the end of the growing season would not disqualify a seasonal industry. Second, during the growing season, other domestic producers of the article who produce in a different growing season must not supply, to any substantial degree, demand for the article. Again, this would not preclude the other industry from selling any produce during the growing season. Instead, the purpose of these two limitations is to preclude arbitrary season cutoffs from meeting the standard. The scope of the modified definition is limited to situations where international producers compete directly with domestic producers of the same like product during the same growing season. This does not mean that there cannot be any overlap between the partial-year growing season in which the domestic industry alleges injury and another growing season. Various factors such as weather conditions may cause one growing season to begin early or end late and yet not affect a separate growing season. While this change will allow the ITC to conclude that a partial-year industry constitutes a domestic industry under section 202, I believe that it is consistent with the NAFTA and other international obligations. This amendment, by itself, will not solve the myriad post-NAFTA challenges facing America's winter vegetable industry. Domestic winter growers are suffering from dramatic increases in imports of Mexican squash, eggplant, sweet corn, beans, bell peppers, tomatoes, and other vegetables. These crops are seasonal and perishable. Without prompt legislative reform, the domestic winter vegetable industry will soon end its second post-NAFTA growing season with unfair rules and hampered ability to redress harm. In human terms, too many farm families have bankrupted, stopped production, and lost confidence in their Government to assure fairness. In addition to S. 1463, we should enact and implement additional legislative and administrative measures to make NAFTA work as it was designed. But today, we do have a chance to take a positive step toward fairness for American farmers. Let us not forfeit that chance as we contemplate adjournment until next month. On behalf of fundamental fairness for farm families, I urge you to support this bipartisan reform. I would like at this time, therefore, to ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1463, a bill to clarify the definitions of domestic industry and like articles in certain trade actions involving perishable agricultural products, that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that any statements relating thereto be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read; provided further that the above occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. As we arrived at the Capitol today, we noticed the remaining ice and snow from the blizzard earlier this month. My thoughts traveled to sunny Florida, America's top tourist destination. Our State is blessed with clean waters, exquisite beaches, subtropical climate, and some of the most beautiful freshwater lakes in the world. Mr. President, some six decades ago, a visionary named Dick Pope, Sr. looked out upon the blessed beauty of central Florida and created what became Cypress Gardens. This world renown attraction, Cypress Gardens, celebrates its diamond jubilee on February 1, 1996. The millions who have visited Cypress Gardens or seen its glory on film join in a national salute to this 60- year milestone. In the six decades since the founding of Cypress Gardens, the attractions industry in Florida has flourished. Through decades of growth and change, Cypress Gardens retains a special place in Florida's tourism legacy. These gardens reflect the natural wonderment of Florida, the ingenuity of Dick Pope and the never-ending appeal of quality family entertainment.