Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am delighted to recognize and congratulate a group of exemplary citizens upon their induction into the 1995 Dr. Nan S. Hutchison Broward Senior Hall of Fame. These 11 volunteers have shown enduring commitment to the community and have brought about positive change through their selfless concern for and dedication to helping others. It gives me great pleasure to salute each of the 1995 inductees for their laudable accomplishments: Elaine Appel has been a guardian ad litem and savior for numerous abused, neglected, and mentally and physically challenged children. With limitless energy, Ms. Appel has given hope to some of those most in need of a loving care giver. Bernard Bernhardt has worked diligently to empower visually impaired citizens so that they might lead productive and independent lives. By also visiting many clients' homes, Mr. Bernhardt has brought assistance to some who might otherwise not have been able to benefit from his caring efforts. Norman Birger is a dynamic volunteer with loyal devotion to the Southeast Focal Point Senior Center. Placing concern for the center before concern for himself, Mr. Birger has worked tirelessly to keep the center a vibrant resource for its members. Constance Caloggero has displayed commendable concern for a wide variety of causes. Her commitment to seniors, women, children, and the infirm--while at the same time serving as Hillsboro Beach Commissioner--enables her to enjoy her work 7 days a week. Oscar Davis has worked on diverse causes and is an example of limitless energy and devotion. From collecting and distributing food for the Salvation Army, to picking up visually impaired citizens so they may attend his talking-book club, to organizing health fairs and blood drives, Mr. Davis works vigorously in helping others. Irving Friedman has used his caring nature and fine leadership abilities to help numerous seniors enjoy a better quality of life. By making support groups and counseling services available, by arranging for transportation to medical facilities, and by visiting seniors in hospitals and nursing homes, Mr. Friedman is a friend for those most in need of one. Dr. Shirley Schaffer Kaufman has donated her professional skills for providing psychiatric and bereavement counseling to seniors and for improving their self-confidence. Dr. Kaufman's distinguishable fund- raising and leadership abilities in aiding the Area Agency on Aging have further assisted countless seniors. Eleanor Locasicio has volunteered numerous hours to bringing care to numerous seniors. In using her personal and professional skills to evaluate infirm elderly in their homes, to instruct seniors in the AARP 55/Alive Mature Driving Course, and to protect wildlife and nature at Flamingo Gardens, Mrs. Locascio has shown a distinct concern for others and for the environment. Juanita C. Phillips has worked diligently to bring children's and minority concerns to the forefront. Her endeavors with several children's organizations, as well as with the Democratic Black Caucus of Broward County, demonstrate her excellent leadership skills and commitment to helping others. Edward Pudaloff has immersed himself into the plight of abused and neglected children. As the founder of HANDY--Helping Abused Neglected Dependent Youth--Mr. Pudaloff provides scholarships and such necessities as clothing, glasses, and medication to needy youths. He has further assisted children in working as a guardian ad litem and speaking for them in the courts. Sybil Scheinman has translated her gift of and love for the theatre into fund-raising assistance for several charitable organizations. Ms. Scheinman's passion is performing, but she is just as enthusiastic helping at the ticket window or backstage--so long as she knows she is bringing happiness to others. Florida and the residents of Broward County alike are fortunate to have been heir to the fine endeavors of these 11 vibrant, caring seniors who have bettered the community and served as an inspiration to others.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to clarify that States which already use, or which seek to utilize, Medicaid dollars to pay private health insurance premiums would be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, a recent interpretation of the anti-kickback statute by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services has placed at risk innovative Government programs that attempt to channel Medicaid and Medicare dollars through the private sector through mechanisms such as the purchase of health insurance policies or the payment for managed care. That interpretation, which could apply the anti-kickback statute to insurance agent commissions, came as part of Florida's waiver request for a Medicaid demonstration project. Such an interpretation ignores the fact that insurance agents are an integral part of any system relying in whole or in part on private health insurance coverage. In the State's submission of its Florida Health Security [FHS] waiver on February 9, 1994, the proposal would--if enacted--provide 1.1 million additional Floridians with insurance coverage up to 250 percent of the poverty level. FHS participants would buy a standard benefit package offered through a community health purchasing alliance and receive, according to their income, a premium discount to make the package affordable. Florida's proposal is innovative but in many ways simple. As the State has explained in its proposal, Through the managed competition system developed in Florida and improved program management, the [State] expects to reduce the cost of health care, thereby increasing the funds available for subsidizing insurance for Florida's uninsured. The net result of this arrangement will be lower health care costs overall in the State and greater access to health care for a significant portion of Florida's currently uninsured residents. Through the community health purchasing alliances established by the State, private sector small businesses are already seeing reductions in their health premiums of between 10 to 50 percent across the State. The State would like to see its Medicaid Program and other small businesses achieve similar results. On September 14, 1994, after 7 months of negotiations with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice, the Federal Government granted a conditional waiver approval to allow Florida to implement the State's proposed reforms. By granting this important request, Florida would be allowed to use Medicaid funds to provide insurance premium discounts to working, uninsured Floridians traditionally ineligible for Medicaid. As a result, despite the Federal Government's failure to move toward the goals of health reform such as increased access, cost containment and quality, Florida could do so through Florida health security. First and foremost, let me reemphasize that this waiver program would allow an additional 1.1 million Floridians obtain health insurance coverage--thereby reducing the State's uninsured rate by over 40 percent. Moreover, of the 2.7 million Floridians presently without health insurance, 1 million are children. With the plan's requirement that 80 percent of the enrollment spaces be reserved for lower-income, uninsured families, children will disproportionately benefit from this initiative. In addition, this waiver would eliminate the all-or-none approach of Medicaid by creating a sliding scale of contributions for those above the Medicaid poverty threshold and up to 250 percent of poverty. At present, Medicaid's all-or-none approach creates the perverse incentive of encouraging people to remain unemployed and in poverty in order to continue to have health care coverage. Florida's approach would clearly help get people off welfare and be a much fairer system than what we have now. The waiver also allows Florida and the Federal Government better control over the costs of the Medicaid Program. Since 1982, Florida's Medicaid Program has increased from $1 billion to $7 billion. From 1990 through 1993, Florida saw its Medicaid budget expand by 30, 26, and 19 percent, respectively. Instead, over the 5-year period of Florida's waiver program, costs would be controlled and managed through the increased use of case management and managed care in the private sector. Through these savings, the State and the Federal Government will be able to provide coverage to over 1 million previously uninsured Floridians without spending additional revenue. In short, Florida's Health Security Program would expand access and health coverage without raising taxes, control costs and break the categorical link between health care and welfare. To implement this program, Florida Health Security will utilize the already successfully established community health purchasing alliances, which have reduced premiums for participating small businesses by 10 to 50 percent and insurance agents will be integrally involved in the Florida Health Security Program. In fact, under Florida Health Security, accountable health partnerships would submit bids on premium rates for the standard benefit plan, with a portion of the premium to be paid by Medicaid. Insurance agents would be directly involved in the process due to the fact that they are an integral part of this process. The alternative would be to employ a statewide force of State workers to provide such enrollment services, which would be wasteful and inefficient in comparison such agents are already trained and available in all areas across the State. Unfortunately, HHS and the Department of Justice have expressed concern that payments to insurance agents by accountable health plans might violate the Social Security anti-kickback statute. Clearly, the 1977 anti-kickback statute was not intended or even contemplated to apply to programs like Florida's demonstration project. In fact, there are already numerous and widespread examples of Medicare and Medicaid funds being used for the payment, directly or indirectly, to insurance agents. These include Medicaid revisions in the Family Support Act of 1988, which creates a Medicaid wrap-around option allowing States to use Medicaid funds to pay a family's expenses for premiums, deductibles and coinsurance for any health care coverage offered by the employer. As the State argued while pursuing the waiver, since insurance companies use insurance agents, the purchase of insurance and the payment of premiums of necessity results in the payment of a commission to an insurance agent. This is also true when Medicaid funds health maintenance organizations [HMO's], the Medicare Risk Program and various State plans relating to areas such as the enrollment of Medicaid eligibles in group health plans. Through the section 1115 Medicaid demonstration project waiver process, Florida is attempting, for the first time, to use Medicaid funds to purchase private health insurance on a wide scale. However, by mistakenly applying the anti-kickback statute beyond its intended scope to insurance agent commissions, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services would effectively and radically alter the demonstration. As noted before, insurance agents are an integral part of the existing health insurance system and our critical to the implementation of Florida's Health Security Program. As a result, this legislation focuses narrowly on clarifying that the 1977 anti-kickback statute would not unnecessarily be applied to Medicaid demonstration projects and Medicaid managed care programs, which were initiatives that were not anticipated in the original adoption of the statute. Failure to adopt this language, with Justice's and HHS's present interpretation of the statute, could very well jeopardize every State or Federal health plan which already uses, or which seeks to use, Federal moneys to fund private health insurance coverage. Through either payments to employers or directly to individuals, many States have Medicaid programs that buy private insurance policies and thereby result in the payment of insurance agent commissions. States such as Oregon, California, Vermont, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and New Jersey have such arrangements and do not withhold payment for commissions or limit the commissions which can be paid. These innovative Medicaid programs and Medicare risk contracts could all be jeopardized without language clarifying the intent of the anti-kickback statute. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with Senators Pryor and Rockefeller to extend the reauthorization of the Medicare Select Program from July 1, 1995, to July 1, 1996. Florida is one of the 15 States originally authorized to participate in the program and more than 20,000 people in Florida were participating in Medicare select by the end of 1994. Medicare select has created a more uniform and understandable set of policies for seniors to choose from in the Medicare supplemental market. As the August 1994 article entitled ``Filling the Gaps in Medicare'' in Consumer Reports said. The law has had positive effects. It eliminated the bewildering variety of benefits that insurance companies had been selling. It made agents wary of selling a prospect more than one Medicare-supplement policy, a useless and costly duplication of coverage. The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida's select policy ranks among the best values in the Nation. However, the expiration date is quickly approaching for this demonstration program. Florida Blue Cross Blue Shield would have preferred the program to have already been extended by April 1, 1995, so that Florida's Medicare beneficiaries and providers could have avoided any disruption in the program. That date has passed. In fact, if not extended shortly, health plans and providers will have to prepare to close the program to new Medicare enrollees on June 30. The consequences would be to significantly increase premiums for current Medicare select enrollees and could lead to deterioration of networks as providers choose to leave the expired program. In S. 308, the Health Partnership Act, that I introduced with Senator Hatfield on February 1, 1995, our legislation would have made the program permanent and expanded the program to all 50 States. I no longer believe this is possible in time to prevent disruption to plans. Although the House passed a version to extend the program for 5 years with an accompanying study to determine whether the program results in savings to enrollees, reduces expenditures in the Medicare Program, and impacts access to and quality of care, Senate review of the program could not take place quickly enough to prevent disruption in the 15 States. Moreover, a study of the items called for by the House is already being conducted by the Health Care Financing Administration through the Research Triangle Institute. Rather than commissioning yet another analysis of Medicare select, wasting the money already being spent to study the program and waiting another 3 years to make potential improvements in the program, it would be better to immediately move forward with a 1-year reauthorization of the program. In the meantime, Congress should consider improvements to Medicare select based upon the forthcoming study and other information we will receive. At that time, Congress should extend the program to all 50 States. During the next year, there are many questions we should be asking of this program. For one, what impact is this program having on Medicare? Moreover, there have been questions raised as to the rating methods used to price and sell these products. According to Consumer Reports, pricing or national health reform makes community rating mandatory for Medicare-supplement policies . . . attained-age pricing will take over the marketplace, with serious consequences to the oldest policyholders. This is something both Congress and the States should be reviewing. As a result, Mr. President, I urge urgent and immediate consideration of this legislation by the Senate and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that a full statement I have prepared be printed in the Record, and a draft of a proposed amendment be printed immediately after my remarks for the purposes of public notice.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would remind my colleagues that we are not debating a tax on immigrants who come to the United States with little or no assets and who, through hard work, find a way to provide for their families. Neither are we talking about taxing each and every resident alien who succeeds in establishing a business or making profitable investments while here in the United States and later decides to return to his or her native country. This tax would apply only if the value of the individual's business or investments had increased by over $600,000. In other words, the first $600,000 in appreciation is fully exempted from the tax. The expatriate tax would apply only to the rich of the rich who made their fortune as a result of access to the enormous resources of this country. It is at least ironic, if not deplorable, that Congress is moving to protect millionaires who are fleeing the country while attacking programs benefiting America's poor children. I understand that the chairmen of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees have charged the Joint Tax Committee with reviewing the taxation of individuals leaving the country, with a report due by June 1. I will respect that directive, but will urge reconsideration of this proposal at the earliest possible opportunity. iv. deficit reduction The exclusion of the expatriate tax from the final version of the legislation dodges another serious issue that we must address. That issue is whether we are committed to reducing the Federal deficit, or whether we are just committed to talking about deficit reduction. The revenues generated from the tax were dedicated to deficit reduction. I will fight to see that the $1.4 billion this tax would raise will ultimately go to deficit reduction. In fact, I urge my fellow Senators today to make a commitment--that we will dedicate the revenues derived from closing tax loopholes--like the gaping one available to those rejecting the benefits and obligations of American citizenship--to deficit reduction. Mr. President, with those remarks, I look forward to voting for the legislation at the earliest possible moment. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to just make two points. I agree with the point that has just been made by the Senator from Oregon, that the matter as it was passed out of the Finance Committee and by the full Senate was deficient in that it did not reach those persons who have been permanent residents of the United States and who then leave the United States and are able to avoid the tax on the substantial increase in their wealth which they achieved while they were in the United States. It was my intention to offer an amendment to do that on the floor when this matter was presented several days ago. However there was a unanimous-consent request, based on the urgency of passage, that precluded any amendments to the legislation at that time and so, in deference to the urgency of passage, I deferred. I am filing in the Record the amendment that I would have offered so there can be public notice and comment on what I intend to propose at the appropriate time to close the loophole by extending this to permanent residents as well as citizens. The second point that I would like to make relates to a concern about how this matter was suggested to be handled within the conference report. That was that any additional income that would have been derived from this loophole would have been used to increase a deduction in the underlying bill. We have had on several occasions, including within the last 36 hours, statements by which the Senate has committed itself to the proposition that, if we reduce spending, the benefits of that reduced spending shall be used for deficit reduction. It is my feeling that we ought to adopt the same principle as it relates to closing tax loopholes. After closing the tax loophole, the primary purpose of those funds ought to be for deficit reduction, not to be added for another tax reduction on a bill that just happens to be coincident with the consideration of the closing of the tax loophole. So in some ways we have been saved from what I think would have been an inappropriate policy, whatever the merits of the specific proposal, inappropriate policy that funds saved from closing a tax loophole would be shifted to other purposes within the same matter before the conference committee. It is my hope that we will, as a further indication of the seriousness of our intention to reduce the Federal deficit, adopt the same principle for tax loophole closing as we have already done for spending reduction; that is, our priority is to reduce the deficit. i. enact expatriation tax I must express disappointment that Congress has chosen to exclude from this bill a provision that would have imposed a tax on individuals who renounce their citizenship. Bolstering the Treasury's ability to exact Federal income tax from millionaires and billionaires who leave the country is long overdue. The proposed legislation would have brought the taxation of individuals who renounce their citizenship more in line with the way the Federal Government taxes Americans who remain in the United States. Americans who are fortunate enough to experience significant appreciation in the value of their property usually are taxed twice: A 28-percent capital gains tax when the asset is sold and an estate tax of up to 55 percent upon death. Even if the Congress had enacted this expatriate tax, individuals leaving the country would be subject to only one tax--at a maximum rate of 39 percent. In short, the tax burden on departing millionaires would still be less than we currently impose on loyal American taxpayers. ii. noncitizen residents In fact, the provision passed by the Senate did not go far enough. The tax that the Senate passed applied to citizens, but failed to include long-term residents who depart from the United States. Excluding long-term residents would result in the United States treating noncitizen residents more favorably than we treat American citizens. Such inequity cannot be justified. Therefore, Mr. President, I submit for the Record an amendment to the version of the expatriate tax passed by the Senate and dropped by the conference committee. The amendment would extend the tax to departing individuals who are lawful permanent residents and have been taxed as residents for at least 8 of the past 15 years. Equity dictates that such an individual be taxed on the appreciation of his or her assets. I submit the text of this amendment for the Record and invite my colleagues to review and analyze the proposal.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on Saturday, March 25, an Iraqi court sentenced two Americans, David Daliberti of Jacksonville, FL, and William Barloon of Iowa, to 8 years in prison. Their crime was an innocent and inadvertent crossing into Iraq from Kuwait. These two men, both of whom were employed by United States contractors working in Kuwait, have been converted from free citizens working in an important area of national responsibility for Kuwait on behalf of United States contractors to prisoners in an Iraqi cell. David Daliberti and his partner have done nothing to deserve this sentence. As the observers at the trial last Saturday stated, these men are innocent of the charges levied against them. The crossing was an honest mistake. This mistake has been admitted, but it is not a criminal offense. The Iraqis must understand several things. First, that we will not allow them to utilize this inadvertent crossing of the border for political purposes. They must understand that their outrageous action toward these two men is the equal of the outrageous action that they have taken when they refuse to abide by the international standards that would be necessary for a lifting of the economic embargo against their country; that their use of these two men for political purposes will in no way lead to a lifting of the embargo or a modification of the U.N. resolutions regarding sanctions. Mr. President, President Clinton should be commended for the action that he has taken in this regard. He has been steadfast, he has been personally involved and committed to see that the United States takes all efforts within its power and by organizing international forces in order to accomplish the objective of the release of these two men. I would also like to thank the representatives of the Polish Government who represent United States interests in Baghdad. They have, as they have done in previous cases, performed a great service for this country. They have represented our interests well in the past, and I am confident that they will do so on behalf of these two Americans. I have written to the United Nations and received assurance from Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali that the United Nations will do everything within its power to ensure the release of these individuals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter dated March 24, from the Secretary General, relative to the commitment of the United Nations, at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there have been a variety of voices raised on this matter. The most compelling have been those of the voices of the families directly involved. The family of Mr. David Daliberti live in Jacksonville, FL. I have had the opportunity to talk with his mother, father, and last Friday with his wife, Kathy. They are, obviously, extremely distressed and anxious about the future of their son and husband. We must convey to them that it is the commitment of the United States of America to do everything within its power to gain the safe and expeditious release of their loved ones. The same commitment will be made to the Barloon family who, I am certain, is experiencing the same level of anxiety. The Iraqis must understand that we will hold them fully responsible for the treatment that they are according these two innocent men; that they will be held accountable in the court of international opinion and law for any adverse actions taken against these two Americans. There have been a variety of proposals made, Mr. President, as to what we should do, ranging from diplomatic to economic to military. I personally believe that we should not take any option off the table. We should not give to Saddam Hussein the confidence that would come by his knowing what we will not do. place our confidence and place our faith in the individual who has the constitutional responsibility to lead United States efforts in a matter of this type, and that is the President of the United States. On Friday, I met with the President at the White House, and I was impressed with the degree to which he was personally knowledgeable of the minute details of this issue; that he had been in personal contact with key figures who have the capability of bringing maximum pressure upon the Iraqis, and his commitment to see that these two men are released as expeditiously and in the best possible circumstances. So, Mr. President, I support the resolution that is before us today. I think it is important that the United States Senate send a strong signal to Baghdad as to our outrage at their action and that their action will not secure any steps which will be beneficial to the country of Iraq. The irony is that the control of the future of Iraq and its people, the ability to lift the economic sanctions and to begin a process of restoring Iraq to a membership in an international community of law- abiding nations lies totally within the Government of Iraq itself and particularly its leader, Saddam Hussein. For months, that regime has rejected its opportunity and responsibility to take those actions. Now they are potentially attempting to use these two innocent Americans as a lever to achieve that result. They shall not succeed. The United States, with our international allies and with the coalition that is being organized by President Clinton, will bring both maximum force, maximum diplomatic, economic and, if necessary, other initiatives in order to achieve the release of these men, while at the same time standing firm behind the sanctions which Iraq imposed upon itself by its lawless activities. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution and send the signals that have the best opportunity to achieve the release of these two men to the regime in Baghdad and to reinforce the leadership which is being provided by our President in Washington. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit 1 March 24, 1995. Senator Bob Graham, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Graham: Thank you for your letter of 23 March 1995 expressing your grave concern for the two United States citizens who have been detained by the Government of Iraq since 13 March after accidentally crossing the border between Kuwait and Iraq. Please be assured that I share your concern. Since the incident occurred, General Krishna Thapa, the Force Commander of the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM), which is situated along the international border between the two countries, has been repeatedly in contact with Iraqi authorities to ascertain the whereabouts of the two individuals, obtain assurances of their well- being, and urge the Government to release them immediately. Mr. Kofi Annan, Under-Secretary-General for Peace-keeping, has also been in touch with the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations to protest the incident and to urge the Government of Iraq to take immediate steps to obtain release of the detainees. Mr. Annan is also keeping the Permanent Representative of the United States informed of any developments in this regard as they occur. You may be assured that the United Nations will continue to do everything we can to bring about the rapid release of the detainees. Please convey to their families my deep concern, together with my personal wishes that their families will soon be reunited. Please accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration. Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand the pending business is the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa, is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if I might, to be listed as an original cosponsor of the legislation just introduced by the Senator from Texas and extend my commendations to her for proposing this long-overdue reform in the treatment of our highest national military leadership.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the distinguished Presiding Officer and I, in the last Congress, were ranking member and chair of the subcommittee which had jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act. As the Presiding Officer knows, we were preparing to hold a series of hearings on this act with the goal of reauthorization in 1995. That is a goal which I hope we will continue to meet. I think it is important that we reauthorize this legislation. During the course of my chairmanship of that subcommittee, I learned some important things about the Endangered Species Act, and I would just briefly in my remaining seconds like to enumerate some of the things I learned. First, that the focus should not be so much on individual species as it should be on the habitat of those species. In many ways, the endangerment of a species is a signal of more fundamental problems in the habitat, problems which can have serious ramifications to the humans who occupy that habitat. Second, in many cases the charges made against the Endangered Species Act were actually the responsibility of some other Federal, State, or local action for which the endangered species became the scapegoat. Finally, Mr. President, I believe that we need to consider the reauthorization of this act. It certainly is in need of reform, but not the kind of amputation that is being proposed by this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the birth of one of baseball's two newest members, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The Tampa Bay community was awarded a franchise last Thursday and will commence play in 1998. This is a very important and welcome, celebrated event for our State and particularly for the 2 million citizens of the Tampa Bay area who have been waiting a long, long time for baseball to come in the summer. For many years, the Tampa Bay area has been home to spring training baseball, and for many years there has been the hope and expectation that baseball would not terminate as the teams left to begin the regular season. That expectation will now be soon realized. This comes after many years of effort. The quest for a major league team began in 1977 with the formation of the Pinellas Sports Authority, an organization that has had as its goal to bring a major league franchise to the Tampa Bay area. Since that time, there have been efforts to secure seven different franchises. In each case, there was the hope and the expectation that the franchise would be relocated to the Tampa Bay area, and then for a variety of reasons that hope was crushed. The latest attempt occurred several years ago when an actual contract was signed for the relocation of the San Francisco Giants to Tampa Bay, and this contract was subsequently canceled by action of the other major league teams. During the course of this activity, working with the various series of major league baseball commissioners, the city determined that it was in its interest and would advance its potential as a major league franchise by proceeding to construct a state of the art domed stadium, which has now been completed, which is utilized for other sports activities and which stands ready with modifications and final refinements to be the home to the new Tampa Bay Devil Rays professional team. In achieving this success, there were many people who were active. I would like to particularly express my appreciation to the managing general partner of the new team, Mr. Vince Naimoli, who, over a period of setbacks and frustrations, remained constant in his commitment to bring major league baseball to Tampa Bay. There have been many officials with the Saint Petersburg city government who have been active in helping to realize this objective. I should like to recognize Saint Petersburg City Administrator Rick Dodge, who, from the very beginning, has played a crucial role in helping to move toward the completion of the stadium and maintaining a high level of community support behind the effort to receive a major league franchise. He is illustrative of dozens of others--elected officials, city administration officials, and the citizens of Pinellas County--who have worked so hard to bring this to a successful realization. Madam President, we are proud of the recognition of this awarded franchise to the important position which the State of Florida plays in major league professional athletics. With this award, our State will now have nine major league franchises in baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, second only to California in the number of professional major league teams playing in the State. This is appropriate to the size and rapid growth of our State and its demonstrated support for professional sports. Madam President, I thank the major league baseball ownership for awarding this franchise to Tampa Bay. They have demonstrated wisdom in doing so because I am confident that this will quickly become one of the strongest franchises in major league baseball. There is a certain degree of optimism in accepting a major league franchise in the context of the current labor-management status, but I am confident well before 1998 we will be playing major league baseball again in America and look forward to the day when the Tampa Bay Devil Rays open their first season. Madam President, thank you for affording me this opportunity to make these remarks on behalf of the citizens of our State and the event that we have long looked forward to celebrating.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I first would like to commend our friend and colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, for another outstanding statement on a cause that he has led for many years, and I hope, I say to the Senator from Arkansas, that we are close to the time when your long walk will reach its destination. I agree with the comments that you have made today as to the fairness and the rationale of moving forward as the Supreme Court has now allowed us to do to sanction States to impose this sales tax on mail order businesses. But, Mr. President, I suggest that there is another reason why this is an imperative at this point in time. We are soon to consider a series of proposals that will have the effect of devolving back to the States, returning to the States significant responsibility for some of the most complex domestic programs that we have in our Nation, programs, in some cases, in which the States have had current involvement, such as the Medicaid Program, some programs in which the Federal Government has in the past played a priority role, such as welfare, and others that are mixed. If we are prepared to say that the States are able to provide the administrative machinery to carry out these complex domestic programs, I find it hard to say that the States should not be entrusted with the authority to make a judgment as to whether it is in the interest of their citizens to tax products that come in by mail order in a parity means with products that are purchased within the State itself, and that is essentially what the issue is with the legislation proposed by the Senator from Arkansas. We are not imposing the tax, we are authorizing the 50 individual States to make a judgment as to whether they believe it is in the interest of their citizens for those States to impose the tax. I am also concerned, Mr. President, about what we are about to do to States, and I come out of a background as a very strong believer in the State Government sensitivity to their people, to their capability to operate programs effectively and efficiently and to their innovative capabilities. But the States also are not alchemists, they do not have the ability to take stones and rub them and convert them into golden coins. We are going to be sending substantial responsibilities back to the States with substantially less dollars than we had felt it was necessary to operate those if they were still under Federal obligation. As an example, in my State of Florida, the calculations are that if we send back Medicaid, the program that provides financing for indigent Americans, to the States, that over the next 5 years, the State of Florida will receive approximately $3.5 billion less than the individual recipients of those funds would have received had we stayed with the current Federal program--$3.5 billion less. The State of Florida this year, from both Federal and State sources, will spend approximately $5 billion on Medicaid. So we are talking about very substantial percentage reductions in funds available. Why is it going to cost the State of Florida so much? In part it is because the formula that has been suggested is one that essentially says we take the status quo, we freeze it for 5 years and allow essentially a cost-of-living adjustment. In my State, we are a growth State which is adding a substantial population every year. For the last 15 years, we have grown at a rate in excess of 300,000 persons a year. Many of those 300,000 are in the high-target populations for Medicaid. In my State, about half of Medicaid expenditures goes for the elderly, primarily for long-term care. So if we are going to say for the next 5 years we are going to freeze the program at a cost-of-living factor and not take into account growth in population, not take into account growth in those populations that are heaviest users of these programs, we are going States. I think that as we enter into this debate on turning responsibility back to the States, we have an obligation to also ask the question, what are we going to do to assure that the States have the fiscal capacity to accept those responsibilities that we are imposing? I believe the Senator from Arkansas has certainly pointed to what ought to be at the head of the line as we begin to ask that question of fiscal responsibility. Here is the program for which there is no rationale as to why the Federal Government should deny the States the authority to impose this tax. There is every reason in terms of tax fairness that they should, in fact, treat mail order sales in parity with sales from the local Main Street store, and the States are going to need the revenue this will provide. In my State of Florida, the estimate is that in 1974 had the sales tax been applied on mail order sales to the same extent it was on Main Street sales it would have produced $168.9 million. That will not close all the gap that our States are going to be faced with as they are asked to take on these new responsibilities, but it will be a worthy beginning. So, Mr. President, I believe for all of the reasons that the Senator from Arkansas has cited with such force and eloquence, as well as the time in history in which we find ourselves, in which we are about to ask the States to do more, that we should also have a concern about how our brethren in the Federal system are going to have the capacity to accept those responsibilities. We say that it is not our purpose to have a dramatic fraying of the safety net. The safety net in my State for hundreds of thousands of older Americans who are in need of long-term care and who have spent all of their life savings as their health condition deteriorated, I do not think we as a nation want to turn those people out of the kind of institutions that they need in order for their well-being. We are asking the States now to pick up a much larger share of the cost of providing for those Americans. This is a beginning of a demonstration of the Federal Government's commitment to see that there are adequate resources available at the State level to meet the additional responsibilities that we are proposing to impose. So, in closing, I want to thank my friend from Arkansas for his leadership in this effort. I hope his leadership will be rewarded by successful passage of this legislation and passage in 1995. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe under the order Senator Kohl was to speak at this time. I was to speak after Senator Kohl. I request the opportunity to speak at this time.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today with my colleagues Senators Mack, Lott, Bradley, Moseley-Braun, Hatch, and Grassley, I am introducing the Caribbean Basin Trade Security Act, a bill which will improve the economic and political security of the nations of the Caribbean Basin and the United States of America. In the last decade, the United States has supported and encouraged the extension of democracy in the Caribbean and Central America through enhanced trade and investment. Today, democracy rules in all of the nations of the Caribbean Basin, with the notable exception of Cuba. This year alone, eight nations in the region are holding free elections. For many nations political stability is by no means guaranteed. As we saw in the painful lesson of Haiti, economic and political instability in the Caribbean region can have tragic consequences for the people and enormous costs to the United States. It is of vital interest to America to see the Caribbean Basin grow economically. Continued economic expansion will help maintain political stability in the region. By improving economic conditions, we can deter illegal immigration, which taxes our resources and hurts those nations which lose some of their youngest and brightest citizens. Economic stability in the Caribbean Basin strengthens our defense against the trafficking of illegal drugs. An economically stable Caribbean Basin is a rich expanding market for United States goods. Yet at a time when economic growth is increasingly critical to the region, members of the Caribbean Basin Initiative [CBI] have faced a challenging climatic change in the area of trade. Since the implementation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA], lowered tariffs on Mexican imports have left the Caribbean Basin at a competitive disadvantage to Mexico. As an example, apparel assembly has been the most rapidly expanding job generator in the CBI region. Over 77 percent of Central American and Caribbean textile and apparel exports to the United States are assembled, in whole or in part, from U.S. components. For an apparel item produced in a CBI country with materials from the United States, a 20-percent duty is charged on the value added by the off-shore assembly. Under NAFTA, this same item can be imported from Mexico duty-free. As a result of this disparity, the growth in apparel imports from Caribbean Basin nations has slowed markedly. There has been a virtual halt in new investment in the apparel sector in the CBI countries and the closing of over 100 plants during the last year alone, at an estimated loss of 15,000 jobs. Before NAFTA, the growth rates for apparel imports from Mexico and CBI nations were roughly equivalent at 25 percent. But by 1994, the CBI growth rate dropped to 14.6 percent, while Mexico's surged to 48.8 percent. All signs indicate that this inequality will continue to expand if parity is not granted to the CBI nations. With the recent devaluation of the Mexican peso, labor and production costs in Mexico have decreased, and as a result, apparel companies have an added incentive to close shop in CBI nations and relocate to Mexico. As past Caribbean trade agreements have shown, the United States stands to be a the chief beneficiary of lowering trade barriers between the Caribbean Basin and the United States. The United States' trade balance with Caribbean Basin countries shifted dramatically following the implementation of the 1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative, from a deficit of $700 million in 1985. This has grown to a surplus of $2 billion in 1993. From a $700 million deficit to a $2 billion surplus on a per capita basis, our surplus with the Caribbean has consistently outpaced our surplus with any other region of the world. This bill covers those manufactured products for which Mexico was granted preferential tariff levels, such as textiles and apparel. Currently, a large portion of U.S. textile and apparel imports are produced in the Far East, where few U.S. materials are used in the production process. U.S. manufacturers and workers stand to benefit from increased production of these items in the Caribbean Basin; new facilities will be more likely to utilize American materials, components, and machinery than does production in the Pacific rim. The American Apparel Manufacturers Association estimates that 15 jobs are created in the United States for every 100 apparel jobs created in CBI production facilities which use U.S. materials. Mr. President, at the Summit of the Americas in Miami this past December, Vice President Gore reiterated the administration's commitment to the realization of hemisphericwide free trade. The administration supports the goal of bringing CBI nations into NAFTA- type free-trade agreements. The Caribbean Trade Security Act which we introduce today paves the way for the gradual association of the CBI nations into a closer bilateral or multilateral trade agreement with the United States. This legislation calls for a 6-year program after which the CBI nations will be allowed the opportunity to negotiate accession to NAFTA or to enter into independent free-trade agreements with the United States. The U.S. Trade Representative's office would make an assessment of the reforms made in each of the beneficiary countries and of the ability of each country to fulfill the obligations of the NAFTA. This checklist would include, among many criteria, the extent to which a country's markets are accessible, progress on macroeconomic reforms, and the protection of intellectual property rights. Mr. President, there is no region in the world with which the United States has a stronger and more mutually beneficial relationship than with our Caribbean and Central American neighbors. This bill will enhance our trading relationship with our neighbors and will strongly benefit the United States. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to consider and support this legislation as a demonstration of our commitment to encouraging economic stability and the principles of free markets and free enterprise. From those, the principles of democratic government and personal freedom will continue to strengthen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to extend my very warm feelings for the service that Reverend Halverson has extended to me and to my colleagues. One of the challenges in life is to be able to approach it holistically. We tend to focus on that thing for which we have a particular responsibility. In our case, our responsibility to represent our constituents in the Nation in the U.S. Senate. What Reverend Halverson has so appropriately reminded Members is we also have broader reins of responsibility--responsibilities of a spiritual nature, responsibilities of a human nature, particularly our responsibilities within our own families. That constant reminder of our broad range of responsibilities has been one of his gifts to me. It will be a gift that I will continue to draw strength from. I wish the reverend well in his own next stage of life. As I told him personally a few moments ago, I hope that he will be able to include some of the warmth of our State--not only its climate--in our appreciation of his service. (The remarks of Mr. Graham pertaining to the introduction of S. 529 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request which has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for up to 30 minutes so that I and Senator Kohl may have time provided under the previous order, and that up to 15 minutes be allocated to the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan].

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a group of young people from Venice High School for honoring our veterans. On November 11, 1994, the Venice Area Veterans Council presented a special salute to Korea veterans during a Veterans Day ceremony. The Venice High School Band, under the direction of John Lapato, performed the ``Korea Veterans March'' composed by Charles Gabriele. Marilyn Sexton was the vocalist. The band included Renee Arata, Mary Baker, Katy Banks, Leeann Bennett, Heather Bibbee, Jennifer Britton, Colleen Buckley, Joshua Burgett, Buddy Corbin, Amanda Coronado, Neejay Cowan, Kevin Crissman, J.B. Dewitt, Erika Fauser, Kelly Feldhouse, Natalie Fleming, Robert Fuller, Kevin Gifford, Brook Greene, John Greenwald, Chris Haines, Eric Hill, Shane Hobbs, Loyom Khan, Aimee Kervin, Stephanie Klinge, Christina Magero, Renee McGoogan, Tim Milligan, Scott Moudy, Emile Paradiso, Ryan Persky, Jeanne Piehl, Michelle Poirier, Chris Ryon, Eric Ryon, Kelly Shetterly, C. Siller, Laura Suffoletto, Grady Smith, James Taylor, Cortnie Thornberger, Melissa Thorley, and Debby Whisler. I applaud these young Americans for honoring our Korea veterans with their time and talents. It was a memorable event for all those involved.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a happy day for my State of Florida. One hundred and fifty years ago today, March 3, 1845, President John Tyler signed legislation which this Senate had passed 2 days earlier making Florida the 27th State to join the Union. I am pleased to stand on the Senate floor today and express my appreciation to America for having accepted our State as a member of the United States and for the benefits that Florida has gained by that membership. Florida has a long history that predates its period of statehood. In fact, Florida was the first point in North America to be discovered by Europeans when Ponce de Leon came upon the coast of Florida near what is now St. period of time in the State, enough to declare it the fountain of youth. In Florida, he looked for a place where one could bathe himself and receive eternal youth. Not much longer, 1565, another Spaniard, Pedro Menendez de Aviles, established the first European city in North America in the location that is currently St. Augustine. Florida had a tumultuous history during its prestatehood/ preterritorial days. In the 18th century, Florida was peripherally involved in what was called the French and Indian War in North America. Florida was also involved in the Seven Years' War in Europe, at the conclusion of which, in 1763, the British Navy occupied Havana Harbor. At the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the Spanish were given a choice. They could either have the British remove their navy from Havana or they could retain ownership of east Florida and west Florida--west Florida being the extension of the State from the Apalachicola River to the Mississippi River. The majority whip, who joins me on the floor today, should take pride in this discussion of Florida. For almost 300 years, the southern part of Mississippi was part of the territory of Florida. The Spanish decided that they would prefer to keep Havana. So the Floridas were transferred to Great Britain. Florida stayed a British territory throughout the period of the American Revolution. At the end of the American Revolution in 1784, the Spanish had occupied Nassau, and the British received the same type of offer that they had made 21 years earlier: Would they prefer to have Nassau or the Floridas? The British decided they would prefer to have Nassau, and the Floridas reverted back to Spanish control. Floridians had to have a fairly high threshold to deal with rejection in the 18th century. But by 1819, the citizens of Florida had decided that their future was not with a European colonial power but was with the United States. That decision was sealed in 1819. In 1821 Florida became a territory of the United States of America and the two parts of Florida were combined into a single territory. Tallahassee was selected by its first territorial Governor, Gen. Andrew Jackson, to be the capital of the territory of Florida. In 1845, Florida's territory had matured, and the United States was prepared to extend full statehood to Florida. Today, we celebrate the 150th anniversary of that statehood. Mr. President, I would like to briefly comment on some of the changes that have occurred in the 150 years since Florida joined the Union. It is said that the one constant in Florida is change. If you do not like something about the State today, just wait a while because it will certainly be different tomorrow. That has certainly characterized our State during the last 150 years. Maybe the most dramatic statement of that change is the sheer demographic size of Florida. When Florida entered the Union 150 years ago today, it was the smallest State in the Union with a population of approximately 55,000. Today, it is the fourth largest State with a population that now exceeds 14 million. Florida is projected to have a population of over 19 million by the year 2020 and by the middle of the next century to have a population approaching 40 million. Florida in 1845 was a State very much on the periphery of the United States of America. It was a long way from almost anyplace in the country to Florida. And it was a long way from any one point in Florida to another. Legislators who represented the Florida Keys, in order to get to Tallahassee, had to take a boat to Philadelphia and then a train back to Thomasville, GA, from which they would take a carriage drive to get to Tallahassee. Florida was remote. It was largely cut off from the mainstream of American life in 1845. Today, Florida has become, in many ways, the linchpin of our emerging relationships within the hemisphere. Florida has become a central point for trade and commerce and cultural exchange, not only within the United States but particularly between North America, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Florida has become a State which is living in the future that will be all America's in the 21st century. The population of our citizens now, particularly the almost 19 percent over the age of 65, reflects what the rest of America's population will be by the end of the first quarter of the 21st century. Florida is leading in technology and arts and culture. It has become a predictor of national trends. In 1845, Florida was a very homogeneous State. Most of our citizens had very similar backgrounds. Today Florida is one of the most diverse States in the Nation. The list of countries from which schoolchildren and the largest public systems in Florida is virtually a list of the nations of the world. Florida is a State which has become, as some describe it, the ``big paella'' of America. It is the place in which people from all around the world now live in large numbers. They are becoming contributing members to our State and our Nation, but also with a fierce pride in their native culture. Florida is becoming a model of the kind of cultural diversity that benefits America. It was with great pride in December of last year that Florida had the privilege of hosting the Summit of the Americas, the first gathering in a quarter of a century of the heads of government of the Western Hemisphere. The summit was the first time in which all of those present were democratically elected heads of government. The summit is illustrative of the centrality of Florida in the new relationship within our hemisphere. Mr. President, Florida is helping the United States in establishing this relationship with the other Americas, but maybe Florida's greatest role for the 21st century will be as a model of how persons from different cultural backgrounds, different ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds can live together in peace. It has been suggested that the challenge of the 21st century will be the challenge of whether Bosnia is our collective future. Will we live in a world in which people who are different than their neighbors will find it impossible to live a life of dignity, respect, and peace? While our State has not been immune from some of the abrasions of cultural diversity, we are proud of the degree to which we are building a society from a diverse community. So, Mr. President, this is a happy and celebratory day for our State of Florida. It comes, I hope, as an event which might serve to assuage some of the contention that was felt here yesterday and maybe reverberates today. One hundred fifty years is a short time in the history of the planet but a long time in the political history of this Nation. It illustrates the good decisions that were made in this Chamber on March 1, 1845, when the Senate of the 54th Congress had the wisdom to enact the legislation that would create the 27th State of the Nation. Our challenge today is to create a record that Americans will look back on 150 years from now with pride. So we thank America for allowing us to join the United States of America. We are proud of what we have contributed. We are pleased to be a full member of this greatest Nation in the history of the world. Thank you. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce the Law Enforcement and Correctional Officers Employment Registration Act of 1995, which will establish a national clearinghouse to assist in background checks on law enforcement applicants. This legislation would establish a national data bank to provide quick, accurate and prior officer employment history on all applicants for law enforcement agencies. This clearinghouse has been called a Pointer File and simply maintains basic information of all certified officers, including names, dates of birth, social security numbers, dates of employment, and any decertifications. The Department of Justice would maintain and offer computer access to all criminal agencies. The intent of my legislation is to help prevent what ``Dateline NBC'' has referred to as gypsy cops. These are police officers who have been dismissed or have been forced to resign from previous positions but conceal prior employment history in future job applications. In the case of the beating death of Bobby Jewett on November 24, 1990, in West Palm Beach, FL, ``Dateline NBC'' was able to subsequently trace the prior employment histories of the two officers involved in the case through four States and eight different law enforcement agencies. Much of this had been concealed in their job applications. As noted in a Tampa Tribune editorial in support of a clearinghouse, Few agencies, particularly those in rural areas and smaller towns, have the personnel and resources to conduct thorough background checks on police applicants. Not even the largest agencies always succeed in finding an officer's past if he or she is determined to hide it. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore adds, ``Experience has shown that, after being found guilty of misconduct, many problem officers resign or are fired, only to seek police jobs elsewhere. The clearinghouse system would allow a law enforcement agency to review each officer applicant's prior history as an officer.'' In order to protect the rights of officers, however, the clearinghouse would not contain information relating to causes of dismissal. Thomas J. O'Loughlin, chief of police of Wellesley, MA, notes, Commonwealth and this Nation is either weakened or solidified by the character of the individuals that we entrust with the responsibility to protect. This legislation provides society with the necessary tools to ensure that individuals who have violated this trust do not simply relocate and once again commit grievous offenses against the public good, and it ensures that a complete and thorough background investigation will be completed prior to an individual assuming the public's trust to be a protector of society. This legislation is essential to maintaining public confidence in the police. Further, the financial impact of office misconduct, as measured by the costs of civil liability litigation, is alarming. A 1992 survey of members of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers found police liability to be the leading cause of soaring litigation costs since 1989. For the majority of law enforcement officers, this is also an issue of job integrity and job safety. The misdeeds of a few place others in an unfavorable light and also at risk. It is safe to say that a history of past dishonorable service in other criminal justice agencies is the most compelling reason to reject an offer. However, this critical information is often unavailable. That is why the International Association of Chiefs of Police has endorsed this legislation. In addition, the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission adopted a unanimous resolution in support of such a program. I would like to thank these organizations, as well as Commissioner Moore, for their efforts to protect effectiveness and professionalism in law enforcement as well as the public's safety. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on Friday, I proposed two amendments, which will be voted on tomorrow. I would like to use this opportunity to briefly discuss those amendments, and why I believe they are so critical, prior to the passage of this constitutional amendment and its possible ratification by the States. I commence by saying that it is my intention to vote for the balanced budget amendment. I do so with great regret. I consider the very debate that we are having today, and over the past several days, an admission of failure. It is an admission of failure in a basic quality of the American character, and that is the quality that each generation has not only the responsibility to attend to its own affairs, but to leave this country as a stronger and better place for our children and grandchildren. That, in fact, has been the history of America for over 200 years. Regrettably, it is the generation of our children that may be the first generation to find that they are not better off, that they do not have greater opportunities personally, economically, educationally than did our generation and preceding generations. We have broken that contract, that intergenerational contract of America. The balanced budget amendment, therefore, is the regrettable response to that broken contract. If there were reason to believe that we were prepared to reform Federal spending without having to go to the draconian extreme of a constitutional amendment, with all of its implications, many of which are unforeseen, if we had not broken that contract, if we had shown some discipline in the past or demonstrated our serious intention to do so in the future, then I would not vote for this constitutional amendment. But the fact is that we have done neither. We have been profligate in the past, and every indication is that we will continue to be in the future. I will cite two examples from each of the major political parties. The President has submitted a budget this year which calls for approximately a $200 billion addition to our national debt--$200 billion of deficit, and about the same level of projected deficit through the next 5 years. The Republicans' Contract With America calls for a balanced budget, but it also calls for increased spending, particularly in the area of Defense, and it calls for tax cuts which, over the next 10 years, will cost the Treasury in excess of $700 billion. Neither the President's budget nor the Republicans' Contract With America adds up. Thus, we are at the point that we are considering a constitutional amendment to place shackles on ourselves so that we will not be as able to sin in the future as we have in the past. My criticism of this amendment, Mr. President, is that its reality does not live up to its rhetoric. It is less than it is purported to be; it is less than it should be. It is not, as it has been described by some of its most fervent advocates, the ironclad amendment that will protect the fiscal future of America. This amendment, however, is likely to be a permanent part of the Constitution of America in the form that we submit it to the States. I believe the States are likely to ratify this amendment. The history of the United States is that we have had 27 constitutional amendments. With the exception of the amendment on prohibition that was repealed some 13 years after it was adopted, no other amendment has been repealed. No other amendment has been modified. So I am operating on the assumption that what we pass in this Senate, what the States ratify, will be in the Constitution of the United States for the foreseeable future. And it is against that long stretch of time that we must evaluate whether this amendment meets our rhetoric and the public's expectation. In my opinion, the combination of the provisions in section 1, which provide that total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for any fiscal year; section 2, which states that the limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased without a three-fifths vote; and section 7, which states that total receipts shall include all receipts to the U.S. Government, total outlays shall include all outlays of the U.S. Government, results in a constitutional amendment that will tolerate--will almost assure that we will grow the national debt by $3 trillion over the next 25 years. While the public is being led to believe that we are passing an amendment that is going to assure fiscal responsibility, we are going to be passing an amendment that will almost have the opposite effect of assuring a dramatic increase in our national debt. How is that going to happen? Well, the first component of that, as this chart indicates, is going to happen whatever we do. Between now and the year 2002, which is the earliest fiscal year to which this amendment will apply, we are going to add approximately $1 trillion to our current $4.942 trillion national debt. So that we will reach the year 2002 with a national debt of $6 trillion. It is the next $2 trillion that we have the opportunity to avoid. The combination of those three sections that I summarized will provide that we will account for our national deficit by an accounting system that says you take in all of the income and you subtract all of the expenditures, and if you are in balance on that basis, then you have met the strictures of the constitutional amendment. The fact is that for the next period, from now until approximately the year 2018, our Social Security Program is going to be generating enormous surpluses. These surpluses will reach a peak of over $3 trillion--a $3 trillion Social Security surplus. Every one of those dollars generated as a surplus in the Social Security system is a dollar against which we can spend for any purpose. Use of the surplus will not be limited to Social Security spending. So the effect of this amendment, with its requirement that Social Security be integrated into the rest of the Federal budget, is to tolerate a $2 trillion increase in the national debt between now and the year 2018. But it could be worse, Mr. President. If, for instance, this or future Congresses decide to manipulate Social Security and the handful of other trust funds that will be contributing to this funds, we can have further opportunities to spend, cut taxes, and still appear to be balancing the budget. The aviation trust fund provides us with a good example of how Congress has misused a Federal trust fund. Every time an American or a foreign visitor purchases an airline ticket within the United States, they must pay a Federal transportation tax. The tax revenue then goes into an aviation trust fund. Legislation passed by this Congress stated that the proceeds of that trust fund were to be used to finance America's aviation system. It helps to pay for the very complex communications system that protects the navigation and the safety of aircraft. It goes, in part, to expanding our system of airfields and airports and terminals and other activities which benefit aviation in this country. The fact is that for a period of years, particularly during the 1980's, we did not spend the money that was coming into that aviation trust fund. The primary reason we did not spend the money was not because we had suddenly decided we were going to become extra conservative in the area of aviation spending, but rather because every dollar we did not spend out of that trust fund added to its surplus and contributed to the masking of the Federal budget deficit. I think that while we were artificially reducing the reported deficit, we were tragically contributing to a degeneration of the best aviation safety system in the world. And we are all aware of some of the recent consequences of that degeneration. So I do not believe that we ought to be encouraging Congress to continue that pattern of behavior. Finally, let me say on this point, Mr. President, I am concerned that some of the strongest advocates of this constitutional amendment are contributing to this public perception that we are going to be passing an ironclad constitutional amendment. Let me just refer to a few of the statements that were published over this weekend and which caught my attention. I am certain they also caught the attention of many of my colleagues. First was an article in the Washington Post, dated Sunday, February 26, entitled ``Congress May Ask Historic Gamble by States,'' a discussion of this constitutional amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in the Record.