Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 1 hour, equally divided, on the resolution and that the only amendment in order be an amendment to the preamble which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate time, the resolution be set aside and the Senate proceed to a vote on the resolution, at a time to be determined by the two leaders. I finally ask that following the vote on the adoption of the resolution, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak about Cuba and why the United States must make every effort to pass a resolution in Geneva at the U.N. Human Rights Commission condemning the Cuban Government. The reality which I seek to convey today is very simply stated. Fidel Castro continues to run Cuba with absolute power, based upon the failed ideals of the Marxist revolution that he led 40 years ago. He is a tyrant, a dictator, and an enemy of freedom, democracy, and respect for basic human dignity. As many of my colleagues know, I have been reflecting on my Senate career lately as I weighed my decision on seeking another term. Let me share one of those memories with you right now. It was October 19, 1987, when I announced my candidacy for the Senate. I traveled to Key West, the southern most point in the Continental United States, to make my announcement. I chose this location for one simple reason. I knew my passion for foreign policy arose from a deeply held conviction that America's freedom could not be taken for granted, that our freedom was not complete so long as others suffered under the yoke of tyranny. Only 90 miles from where I declared my aspiration to be a U.S. Senator in order to take part in the fight against the enemies of freedom, Fidel Castro ruled with a failed ideology and a cruel iron fist. It seems that I have been in the Senate for a long time--10 years-- but if I were to travel to Key West today, I am sad to say, I could still point toward Cuba and ask the same questions I did on October 19, 1987: What does it mean to live in peace if there is no freedom to worship God, no freedom to choose our livelihood, no freedom to read or speak the truth or to live for the dream of handing over a better life to our children and our grandchildren? Peace without freedom is false. The Cuban people are only free to serve their masters in war and in poverty. Mr. President, I have many good friends in the Senate, and I have great respect for my colleagues. We share so much of our lives with each other each day. And even though we are divided on many issues, in our hearts there can be no division on our feelings for the suffering people of Cuba. The island so close to our shores serves as a tragic reminder of the human cost of tyranny and oppression and that freedom is not free. Let me propose today that Fidel Castro has not changed in 10 years; in fact, he has not changed in 40 years. In the history books, 40 years can be covered in a single sentence. But in Cuba, it can also be an eternity. I think about the 12 years since I made that speech. How many people have suffered and died needlessly in 12 years? How many screams of agony have reached for the heavens from Havana in 12 years? How many tears of sorrow and anguish have fallen in 12 years? I fear we will never know the true scale of suffering, even though it takes place so close to our shores. Some of us have served in the Senate for a few years, some of us for 10 or 12, and some of us have been here for 30 years or more. Think what it must be like serving instead in one of Fidel Castro's prisons for all that time. In Cuba you could be imprisoned simply for doing what we do each day, and that is engage in the debate of ideas. Think about how different our lives would be if we lived in a similar environment. I assure you, Mr. President, that the human spirit is a powerful thing. We know that throughout the world and throughout history mankind has struggled for freedom against the greatest of obstacles. That struggle lives, breathes, sweats, and thrives in Cuba today. But it does so at a great cost. I have two short stories I want to share to demonstrate the price being paid in Cuba today. There is a famous man known as Antunez. He began supporting freedom in Cuba in 1980. He has been in and out of prison for much of his adult life. As of February 1999, reports out of the prisons have him in poor health. I want to read a quote from a letter he wrote and successfully smuggled out of Cuba 2 years ago. I quote: On March 15 [1997], it will be seven years that I have been imprisoned but I have yet to lose my faith and confidence in the final triumph of our struggle. I am proud and satisfied that they will have been unable to--and will never be able to--bend my will, because I am defending a just and noble cause, the rights of man and the freedom of my country. A second story: I have recently seen a March 10, 1999, statement of Dr. Omar del Pozo, which I want to share with you today. He was a prisoner of conscience, sentenced to 15 years in prison for promoting democracy and civil society in Cuba. Through the intercession of Pope John Paul II, Dr. Pozo was released and exiled to Canada after serving 6 years of the sentence. It is interesting to note the comments of a man who owes his freedom from Cuba's prisons to the Pope's visit to Cuba. Listen to what he has to say about the so-called changes taking place within the Cuban Government. And I am now quoting: In Castro's man-eating prisons, lives are swallowed, mangled, and spit out in what can only be described as his revolving-door of infamy. Some may claim that the fact that I am able to stand before you here today is because I am a product of engagement with Castro. While I am certainly grateful for the international outcry that created pressure on Castro to release me, it would be negligent of me not to recognize that as long as the dictator remains in power, there will continue to be political prisoners who are destined to become pawns to be handed over as tokens depending on the occasion . . . . my release in no way benefited the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men and women who were left behind. Dr. Pozo's statement certainly rings true--that the visit of the Pope and his personal release and exile from his home do not, counter to popular belief, indicate a new day in Cuba. He continues on in his statement. Again, I quote: Forty years have passed, and a new millennium dawns, and still political prisoners exist in a country only 90 miles from the shores of the freest nation on earth. . . . In the confusion of cliches Cuba has become in the mass media: Castro and cigars, Castro and tourism, Castro and baseball, the terrible tragedy of Cubans and their legitimate needs and desires takes a backseat to the priorities set by the Comandante en Jefe and his regime. The truly tragic part is that there are some who, in the name of profit, are willing to compromise justice and play by his rules, with no regard for the welfare of the Cuban people. Just as actions indicate no improvement in the Government of Cuba, one could argue that things are not really getting worse. In fact, the recent crackdown in Cuba is only a manifestation of the nature of the ruling regime. Again, let me quote from Dr. Pozo: These past days, I have heard even experienced Cuba observers question why Castro has raised the level of repression at this point in time, considering the many gestures of goodwill he has received internationally prior to and following the Papal visit. The only possible answer is that it is the nature of the beast. Castro can not help it any more than he can help being a totalitarian dictator. It is who he is and will always be. It is because he is motivated by one thing and one thing alone: [and that is] absolute power. He wants to continue to stand on the backs of the Cuban people and he will persecute, torture and kill in order to accomplish his goal of being Cuba's ``dictator for life.'' By now, everyone knows who Castro is and what he is capable of. From this point on, the field can only be divided between those who are willing to overlook his crimes and those who are not. Again, I just point out, those were not my words. These are the words of an individual who was released from Castro's prison because of the pressure brought on by the international community and by the Pope's visit. What he is saying here is that nothing has changed as a result of the Pope's visit to Cuba. He is saying nothing has changed. And he is saying to us--not me saying, but he is saying to us--that ``the field can only be divided [now] between those who are willing to overlook [Castro's] crimes and those who are not.'' Mr. President, in conclusion, let me once again say freedom is not free, but it is the most valuable thing that we know; it is, in fact, the core of all human progress. Freedom has everything to do with our spiritual, physical, and political lives. Without it--without freedom-- what would we do? It is important to think about this in order to appreciate the words of the brave men and women in Cuba fighting for freedom, because they are, after all, fighting for everything and paying a large price indeed. I want to reach out to my colleagues today. We loathe tyranny and oppression. So let us stand united behind our delegation in Geneva; let us proclaim our views at the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Let us stand tall and speak with unity, conviction, and strength. Let us proclaim: ``The United States of America abhors tyranny and loves freedom. We oppose the enemies of liberty and we support those struggling for LIBERTAD.'' That, Mr. President, represents the meaning of this resolution in its entirety. I hope my colleagues will join me today in making this most important statement. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. There are no further speakers on my side, so I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today with my esteemed colleague and friend, Senator Graham, to introduce the Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1999. I would not be here today if I did not wholeheartedly believe that the problem facing the court system in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida is one of the most acute judgeship problems in the nation. If judicial resources are not increased in these two districts, the problem will become irreversible. Mr. President, the situation that presently exists in Florida rises to the level of an emergency and thus, the problem needs attention today. The legislation that Senator Graham and I are introducing would create seven new judgeships for the state of Florida. The Middle District would receive five new permanent judgeships, and the Southern District would receive two new permanent judgeships. These numbers were officially recommended by the United States Judicial Conference earlier this week. The Middle District of Florida is nearly 400 miles, spanning from the Georgia border on the northeast side to the south of Naples on the southwest coast of Florida. This district includes, among others, the cities of Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa. The Southern District encompasses Ft. Lauderdale and Miami, along with other cities in the southern portion of the state. Additional judgeship positions have not been created for these districts since 1990. Since this time, the Middle District alone has had a 62 percent increase in the total number of cases filed. Moreover, Florida's population has increased nearly twice as fast as the nation during the 1990s. By 2025, the United States Census Bureau projects Florida will surpass New York as the third largest state with 20.7 million residents. Each year, Florida becomes a winter home to people from all over the United States and the world. In addition, the Middle and Southern Districts are home to major tourist attractions such as Disney World, Universal Studios, Sea World, Busch Gardens, and South Beach. The heavy flow of both winter residents and tourism, along with Florida's growing number of permanent residents, causes the needs of these two judicial districts to be unique in this nation. In addition, the Middle District contains the federal correctional center at Coleman. When the penitentiary is completed in Spring 2001, this will be one of the largest prison complexes in the country and the largest in the state of Florida. The capacity at Coleman will be approximately 4,700 inmates and all complaints filed by these prisoners regarding the facilities and their individual care will be sent to the Middle District for resolution. To add to the problem, a portion of the Middle District has been designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. While I am pleased that Florida will be receiving additional assistance in the war against drugs, we also must recognize that this law enforcement initiative is expected to dramatically impact narcotic related arrests and therefore, prosecutions in the Middle District. Thus, it is apparent that without the addition of new judges, access to justice will no longer be swift in the Middle and Southern Districts. To provide Floridians with a safe environment and access to justice, a court system must be put in place which can handle the demands of this dynamic and growing part of our country. Accordingly, I urge the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to consider and pass this legislation expeditiously.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Grams, Lieberman, and Kyl, I introduce the Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1999. This bill would allow manufacturers of printed wiring boards and printed wiring assemblies, known as the electronic interconnection industry, to depreciate their production equipment in 3 years rather than the 5 year period under current law. As we approach the 21st century, our Nation's Tax Code should not stand in the way of technological progress. Printed wiring boards and assemblies are literally central to our economy, as they are the nerve centers of nearly every electronic device from camcorders and televisions to medical devices, computers and defense systems. But the Tax Code places U.S. manufacturers at the disadvantage relative to their Asian competitors, because of different depreciation treatment. This disadvantage is particularly difficult for U.S. firms to bear, as the interconnection industry consists overwhelmingly of small firms that cannot easily absorb the costs inflicted by an irrationally-long depreciated schedule. As technology continues to advance at light speed, the exhilaration of competition in a dynamic market is dampened by the effects of a tax code that has not kept pace with these changes. Obsolete interconnection manufacturing equipment is kept on the books long after this equipment has gone out the door. Companies with the competitive fire to enter such a rapidly-evolving industry must constantly invest in new state-of-the art equipment, replacing obsolete equipment every 18 to 36 months just to remain competitive. U.S. investments in new printed wiring board and assembly manufacturing equipment have nearly tripled since 1991--growing from $847 million to an estimated $2.4 billion. But this investment is taxed at an artificially-high rate, because deductions for the cost of the equipment are spread over a period that is several years longer than justified. The industry is at the mercy of tax laws passed in the 1980s, which were based on 1970s-era electronics technology. It is no wonder that the market share of U.S. interconnection companies has been cut in half over this period. Our Tax Code should not continue to undermine the competitiveness of American businesses. The opportunity is before us to correct the tax laws that dictate how rapidly board manufacturers and electronic assemblers can depreciate equipment needed to fabricate and assemble circuit boards. The Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1999 will provide modest tax relief to the electronics interconnection industry and the 250,000 Americans, residing in every state in the Union, whose jobs rely on the success of this industry. This industry should get fair and accurate tax treatment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, in an effort to help increase awareness and education about cervical cancer, and to pay tribute to women who have battled the disease, today I am submitting a Senate Resolution to designate the month of January as ``National Cervical Health Month.'' I am pleased that Senator Dianne Feinstein and 31 bipartisan colleagues in the Senate have agreed to be original co- sponsors of this Senate Resolution. I understand that Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald will be introducing similar legislation in the United States House of Representatives, and I would like to commend her for the leadership she has shown in this important effort. I would also like to pay tribute to Ms. Carol Ann Armenti, Director of the Center for Cervical Health in Toms River, New Jersey. Ms. Armenti has worked tirelessly on behalf of cervical cancer patients and their families, and she has been a true leader in educating women about this disease. In January, her organization, along with the American Medical Women's Association, launched the National Cervical Cancer Public Education Campaign. The leadership of Ms. Armenti will have a lasting impact upon the lives of women of today, and future generations will be the beneficiaries of her work. Mr. President, the issue of cervical cancer is one which is deeply personal to my wife, Priscilla, and to me. In 1990, our daughter, Debbie, was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Because of our family history with cancer, Debbie was aware that she had an increased risk of cancer and she made sure to take advantage of early detection screening procedures. Fortunately, her cervical cancer was detected at an early stage, and she was treated successfully with surgery. Not long after her treatment, she have birth to our third grandson. Debbie's experience with cervical cancer exemplifies the fact that early detection saves lives. According to the American Cancer Society, nearly 1,000 women in Florida will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1999. This year, Florida will have the third largest number of new cases of cervical cancer. Yet, despite significant progress being made in the war on cancer, not all segments of the U.S. population have benefitted to the fullest extent from the advances made in the understanding of cancer. According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine report, ``The Unequal Burden of Cancer,'' rates of cervical cancer are significantly higher in Hispanic and African-American women. We simply must reinforce our efforts to eradicate this terrible disease. Research, education, and early detection are the most effective weapons we have in the war on cervical cancer. Research is the key to finding a cure for cervical cancer, and significant progress is being made in this regard. Last month, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) took the rarely-used step of issuing a Clinical Announcement urging physicians to give strong consideration to adding chemotherapy to radiation therapy in the treatment of invasive cervical cancer. According to NCI Director Rick Klausner, this will likely change the standard of treatment for cervical cancer. Dr. Mitchell Morris of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center called this new treatment approach, ``the first fundamental advance in the treatment of cervical cancer in more than 40 years.'' I'm also proud to say that several cutting-edge cervical cancer studies are taking place in my home state of Florida. Scientists at the University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center are studying a new type of cervical cancer immunotherapy. They are developing ``killer cells'' specifically designed to target cancer cells which express human papilloma virus (HPV). By eradicating these cells, the hope is to kill the tumor, even if the cancer has spread. At the H. Lee Moffitt Comprehensive Cancer Center in Tampa, studies are underway to develop a cervical cancer vaccine using some of the same characteristics of the human papilloma virus. They are also examining biomarkers to detect cervical cancer before malignant changes occur. The U.S. Senate and House, working in bipartisan cooperation, have embarked upon an historic mission to double funding for the National Institutes of Health over the next five years. Last year, the Congress overwhelmingly passed, with bipartisan support, a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health--the largest increase in NIH history. With the tremendous progress being made in cervical cancer and other diseases, I was astonished and extremely disappointed the President's FY 2000 budget only calls for a meager 2.6% increase for medical research at the NIH. This is simply unacceptable. The President's proposed budget means a cease-fire in the war against cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and other illnesses. In effect, the President's proposal is a formal act of retreat in the heat of battle. I was also shocked that the President's FY 2000 budget calls for not one additional penny of funding for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. For FY 1999, the bipartisan Congress provided a $16 million increase. By contrast, the President's request for FY 1999 was for an increase of less than $1 million for this life-saving program, and he proposes no increase for next year. When it comes to cervical cancer research and screening, the President just doesn't get it. It's obvious the leadership on these initiatives will have to come from this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It will be through the bipartisan commitment of the Senate and House that these important research and detection programs will receive adequate funding. I want to pledge my support, and to work with my colleagues in Congress to make sure this happens. Far too many lives depend upon it. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to co-sponsor this resolution to designate January as ``National Cervical Health Month.''

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, a unilateral statehood declaration by chairman Arafat would constitute a gross violation of the Oslo accords, in effect ending the peace process. And any state that he might declare, outside of the peace process, would be illegitimate, irresponsible, and wrong. I am pleased to see this initiative has been cosponsored by 90 Senators as of this morning. But we must realize that this show of support grows from a very deep and heartfelt concern. We want peace to succeed, but Chairman Arafat's threat to unilaterally declare a state clearly threatens peace. Mr. President, last week in a statement on the Senate floor, I asked how can peace be reached while the Palestinian leadership teaches children to hate. Today I ask, how can peace be reached when the Palestinian leadership threatens to unilaterally impose a final status. I rise today to oppose this threat to the peace process. I hope the President will join us in making this statement to Chairman Arafat.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today Senator Breaux and I introduce a bill reaffirming that the lawmaking power is the province of the Congress, not the executive branch. Our bill prohibits the Treasury Department from issuing regulations that would impose taxes on U.S. companies merely because one of their subsidiaries pays money to itself. As a general rule, U.S. corporations pay U.S. corporate income tax on the earnings of their foreign subsidiaries only when those earnings are actually distributed to the U.S. parent companies. An exception to this general rule is contained in subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code, which accelerates the income tax liability of U.S. parent companies under certain circumstances. The Treasury Department has announced, in Notice 98-35, an intention to issue regulations that will accelerate income tax liability for U.S. companies--not based on the specific circumstances enumerated in subpart F, but instead on a new ``interpretation'' of the ``policies'' that Treasury infers from that 36-year-old provision. This action crosses the line between administering the laws and making the laws, and cannot be allowed by Congress. Notice 98-35 concerns so-called ``hybrid arrangements.'' These involve business entities that are considered separate corporations for foreign tax purposes, but are viewed as one company with a branch office for U.S. purposes. U.S. companies organize their subsidiaries in this manner to reduce the amount of foreign taxes they owe. Transactions between a subsidiary and its branch have no impact on U.S. taxable income of the parent, as its subsidiary is merely paying money to itself. But the Treasury Department intends to impose a tax on the U.S. parent to penalize it for reducing the foreign taxes it owes. This effort is wrong for several reasons. First, the Treasury Department possesses only the power to issue regulations to administer the laws passed by Congress. New rules based on Congressional purpose are known as laws, and under the Constitution laws are made by Congress. Second, the Treasury Department is elevating one policy underlying subpart F--taxing domestic and foreign operations in the same manner-- over the other policy of maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. companies in foreign markets. This proposed tax would put U.S.-owned subsidiaries at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, the Treasury Department should not impose a tax on U.S. companies to force these companies to reorganize in a way that increases the taxes they owe to foreign countries. The Treasury Department is not the tax collector for other nations. And by raising the foreign tax bills of U.S. companies, the Treasury Department is also increasing the size of foreign tax credits and thereby reducing U.S. tax revenues. The Treasury Department is not only making policy that it has no right to make, it is also making bad policy. Our bill places a moratorium on this lawmaking. It also directs the Treasury Secretary to study these issues and submit a report to the tax-writing committees of Congress. Many people and organizations, including the Treasury Department, desire changes in the tax laws. But only Congress has the power to make these changes, and this is a power we intend to keep.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today Senator Breaux and I introduce a bill reaffirming that the lawmaking power is the province of the Congress, not the executive branch. Our bill prohibits the Treasury Department from issuing regulations that would impose taxes on U.S. companies merely because one of their subsidiaries pays money to itself. As a general rule, U.S. corporations pay U.S. corporate income tax on the earnings of their foreign subsidiaries only when those earnings are actually distributed to the U.S. parent companies. An exception to this general rule is contained in subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code, which accelerates the income tax liability of U.S. parent companies under certain circumstances. The Treasury Department has announced, in Notice 98-35, an intention to issue regulations that will accelerate income tax liability for U.S. companies--not based on the specific circumstances enumerated in subpart F, but instead on a new ``interpretation'' of the ``policies'' that Treasury infers from that 36-year-old provision. This action crosses the line between administering the laws and making the laws, and cannot be allowed by Congress. Notice 98-35 concerns so-called ``hybrid arrangements.'' These involve business entities that are considered separate corporations for foreign tax purposes, but are viewed as one company with a branch office for U.S. purposes. U.S. companies organize their subsidiaries in this manner to reduce the amount of foreign taxes they owe. Transactions between a subsidiary and its branch have no impact on U.S. taxable income of the parent, as its subsidiary is merely paying money to itself. But the Treasury Department intends to impose a tax on the U.S. parent to penalize it for reducing the foreign taxes it owes. This effort is wrong for several reasons. First, the Treasury Department possesses only the power to issue regulations to administer the laws passed by Congress. New rules based on Congressional purpose are known as laws, and under the Constitution laws are made by Congress. Second, the Treasury Department is elevating one policy underlying subpart F--taxing domestic and foreign operations in the same manner-- over the other policy of maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. companies in foreign markets. This proposed tax would put U.S.-owned subsidiaries at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, the Treasury Department should not impose a tax on U.S. companies to force these companies to reorganize in a way that increases the taxes they owe to foreign countries. The Treasury Department is not the tax collector for other nations. And by raising the foreign tax bills of U.S. companies, the Treasury Department is also increasing the size of foreign tax credits and thereby reducing U.S. tax revenues. The Treasury Department is not only making policy that it has no right to make, it is also making bad policy. Our bill places a moratorium on this lawmaking. It also directs the Treasury Secretary to study these issues and submit a report to the tax-writing committees of Congress. Many people and organizations, including the Treasury Department, desire changes in the tax laws. But only Congress has the power to make these changes, and this is a power we intend to keep.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Tibetan people are suffering today in the name of freedom, and I am pleased to rise with Senator Moynihan to submit a resolution in solemn commemoration of this day, March 10, in Tibetan history. It was on March 10, 1959 that the Tibetan people said, ``enough is enough.'' The city of Lhasa organized into what later became known as the ``Lhasa revolt'' on this day forty years ago, to protect their beloved leader, the 14th Dalai Lama, and to reject the impositions of Beijing. Let me provide some details. The new communist government in Beijing sent an army to invade Tibet in 1949. The People's Liberation Army quickly overwhelmed Tibetan defenses. In 1951, a Tibetan delegation went to Beijing to negotiate a peace agreement. But negotiation is too kind of a word. The Tibetan delegation was forced to sign a PRC-written document known as the ``17 Point Agreement.'' Even though it was forced upon the Tibetan government, it promised to preserve Tibetan political, cultural, and religious institutions, and so was warily accepted by the Tibetan government. Mr. President, going back to the early days of the PRC, we can see a pattern. The terms on paper protected the Tibetan way of life. But the promises proved empty. I suggest this is a lesson our President today would be wise to learn. Whether regarding Hong Kong, weapons proliferation, or trade, we must remember what Ronald Reagan taught us--``trust, but verify.'' This is especially true of our dealings with communists and authoritarian rulers. In Tibet, nine years of trying to compromise with the communists, from 1951 to 1959, failed. In fact, the restrictions on Tibet increased progressively, as did the oppression and brutality of Beijing's rule. March 10, 1959 stands out as an important day, not only in Tibet's history, but also in the history of humanity's struggle for freedom. On this day, the people of Lhasa organized a permanent guard around the Dalai Lama's palace, and demanded the withdrawal of the Chinese from Tibet and the restoration of Tibet's independence. One week later, the Dalai Lama was forced to flee his home and his people while his palace was being shelled by the PLA. It is important to note that, in a great and triumphant official act, he repudiated the 17-Point agreement. According to Chinese statistics, 87,000 Tibetans were killed, arrested, or deported to labor camps during this ``Lhasa Revolt.'' Countless tried to follow the Dalai Lama to India--unfortunately, only a very small percentage of the thousands who attempted to escape through the Himalayas to India survived. If they could successfully avoid the Chinese military--then they would succumb to malnutrition, cold, and disease. Mr. President, we are today honoring the memory of the more than 87,000 Tibetans who paid with their lives for the preservation of Tibet. We also honor the 6 million Tibetans today who keep alive the hope of one-day returning home. Mr. President, we believe in certain inalienable rights; it is part of our constitution. I believe that our freedom cannot be complete, and we as a nation cannot achieve our fullest greatness, so long as others suffer from the yoke of tyranny and oppression. Tibet today suffers from cultural genocide at the hands of the PRC. And yet, don't they also have inalienable rights: to reject tyranny? to determine their political future including independence? to chose freedom and reject oppression? The answer, very clearly, must be a resounding ``yes.'' We have introduced this resolution today, to register this ``yes.'' We do it for His Holiness, the Dalai Lama of Tibet. We do it for the 6 million Tibetans in the world today facing the very real and unfortunate threat of seeing their homeland destroyed and culture obliterated. And, we do it for each of us who believe that the gifts we have in our lives here do not excuse us from caring about the struggles of others. I am pleased to submit this resolution, and ask my colleagues to support its immediate adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement issued by the Dalai Lama of Tibet be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator for yielding. I will not use that much time. I thank the Senator for the leadership he has provided on this legislation. It was really not my intention to speak on this bill because I was under the impression that this bill had great bipartisan support, that we would bring this to the floor after coming out of committee, and it would breeze through the Senate. This is a piece of legislation that is supposedly--supposedly--supported by everybody. I am pleased to speak in favor of the Ed-Flex bill. Our children will thrive when State and local communities are given the freedom to craft their education plans according to the unique education needs of their children. Local schools do more when Washington bureaucracies do less. That is what this bill does. We are beginning the second week of consideration of this bill. We have been forced to file three cloture motions on what may be the most popular, most bipartisan legislation we will consider this Congress. I fear this may set the tone for the remainder of the 106th Congress, where consideration of any bill will be filibustered by the Democrats and drive partisanship to new heights. As I implied a moment ago, I am in some ways confused by what is happening. I do not understand how a bill that supposedly is supported by an overwhelming number of Members on both sides of the aisle has been caught up in this constant and continuous effort to amend the bill. I think the actions we have seen during this past week, and what we are anticipating through the balance of this week, raise the question about those who have cosponsored the bill and who say they are in support of it. I question whether they truly support the idea of Ed- Flex, which is to allow State and local communities to have more control over how dollars are spent. I think there is a ruse underway here. I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to claim that they support the idea of giving local communities and States more authority and more flexibility in how to spend their dollars, yet they come out here and offer amendment after amendment on this bill, knowing full well--and I ask the Senator from Tennessee if this is not the case--knowing full well the majority leader has said to them there will be other opportunities to offer these amendments on other education bills when they come forward. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. MACK. As I said a minute ago, I really am serious now in raising questions about the sincerity of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who purport that they are in favor of Ed-Flex but, yet, want to bog this piece of legislation down with a whole series of amendments they know are controversial. There is nothing wrong with us dealing with controversial amendments and controversial issues. We do that throughout our entire political careers. The question is the timing of it. The question is the approach. I am, again, dismayed by the attitude that is being projected here. I, again, question sincerity. Recently, we went through a 5- or 6-week period at the beginning of this new Congress with a very contentious issue dealing with the impeachment trial. But each side made a sincere effort to work with the other, and as a result I think we did a credible job. I think most people in the country think we did a credible job. Yet, on this the second piece of legislation we are considering, we are being forced to offer cloture motion after cloture motion after cloture motion--three so far. There should be no question in anyone's mind that the intention here, I believe, is now to kill this piece of legislation because it goes against their political interests. It goes against their philosophy. In all honesty, the differences in the approach about education in America is clear. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are convinced the only way to improve education in America is to have a larger group of wiser bureaucrats in Washington make a determination about how resources ought to be allocated and what regulations ought to come down from Washington in order to solve this problem. We have a totally different view. We think if we give this money to the States and the local communities, they can make better decisions about what their top spending priority is. In some local school districts that is school buildings. In other school districts that is school books. In others, that is teachers. We ought to allow them to make those decisions. We should not stand in their way. Again, I came here to raise these points with respect to the process, as much as anything else. I remind everyone that, in the last Congress, there were 69 cloture motions that were filed--69 cloture motions. And here we are again battling along party lines about a bill that we were told might pass with 100 votes. I have serious reservations now whether that is going to happen. I think the actions of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very clear. They are now trying to kill the idea of allowing States and local communities to have more flexibility. Again, I appreciate the work and the effort of the Senator from Tennessee on this issue. He has provided great leadership and I appreciate the opportunity and the time he has given me. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for Senate Resolution 57 condemning the Cuban government's human rights record and calling on the President to make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution condemning Cuba at the UN Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. Many people have written and spoken about the latest crackdown in Cuba as if they were discovering for the first time the nature of Fidel Castro's brutal regime. Fidel Castro is a tyrant. He rules with absolute authority and uses fear and greed to maintain his power. For forty years he has demonstrated to us his nature. He has not changed. We must continue our pressure on him--voice our opposition to him. And we must continue our support for the struggling Cuban people. The choice should not be difficult to make: we must stand with those suffering under one of the few totalitarian Marxists remaining in power in the world, and we must stand up to condemn the actions of the brutal regime. One clear reminder of who we are dealing with is the murder in the Florida straits of four Americans in 1996. They were flying a humanitarian mission when the Cuban Air Force shot their unarmed aircraft out of the sky. For three years, Mr. President, we have all known about this murder, and for three years, I have been struggling to understand why this administration refuses to take appropriate action. The Boston Globe published a very powerful essay by columnist Jeff Jacoby to mark this anniversary. I'd like to read from it. Jeff captures the starkness of the mismatched foreign policy in place, comparing the act, which Fidel Castro committed with this administration's unprincipled response. His piece is titled ``Murder Over the High Seas.'' They were trying to save lives. Three years ago this week, they paid with their own. When Armando Alejandre, Carlos Costa, Mario de la Pena, and Pablo Morales took to the skies that day in their little blue-and-white Cessna 337s, their plan was to search the Florida Straits for stranded boat people, refugees fleeing Cuba in makeshift rafts or flimsy inner tubes. There was little enough the fliers could do for any rafters they came upon--toss down food and bottled water, radio their location to the Coast Guard--but that little could make the difference between life and death. Of the four, Carlos was the most experienced. He had flown more than 500 such missions for Brothers to the Rescue, and had saved scores of boat people from drowning or dying of thirst. Armando, by contrast, was going up for only the second time. What all four had in common was a love of American liberty--and a profound concern for any Cubans so desperate to escape Fidel Castro's Caribbean hellspot that they would risk their lives to get away. On Feb. 24, 1996, Carlos, Armando, Mario, and Pablo took off from an airfield in Opa-Locka, Fla. They intended to fly just below the 24th parallel, well north of Cuba's territorial waters. Both planes contacted Havana air-traffic controllers as they approached the 24th parallel, identifying themselves and giving their position. Whereupon the Cuban Air Force, without warning and without reason, scrambled two MiG fighters and blew the rescue planes out of the sky. The Cessnas and their passengers were disintegrated by the Cuban MiGs. Only a large oil slick marked the spot where they went down. No bodies were ever recovered. Three of the men--Carlos, Mario, and Armando--were US citizens. Pablo, a former refugee who had himself been saved by Brothers to the Rescue in 1992, was a permanent US resident. What happens when four American civilians are butchered in cold blood, over international waters, by the air force of a Third World dictatorship? What terrible retribution does the United States exact for a quadruple murder so barbaric and unprovoked? The astonishing answer is: Nothing happens. There is no retribution. Indeed, the Clinton administration takes the position not only that Castro must not be punished for the four lives he destroyed, but that the victims' families must not be permitted to recover anything for their loss. In the wake of the shootdown, under intense political pressure, President Clinton agreed to sign the Helms-Burton Act. Title III of the statute allows American citizens whose property was confiscated by the Cuban government--Castro nationalized billions of dollars' worth of American assets in the 1960s--to file suit against any foreign company using that property. Title IV bars any officer of a foreign company trafficking in stolen American property from receiving a visa to enter the United States. Properly enforced, Helms-Burton would weaken Castro's grip on power by reducing the flow of foreign capital into his treasury. But Helms-Burton is not properly enforced. Title III has never taken effect because Clinton keeps suspending it (as the law permits him to do if he finds that a suspension ``will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba''). Title IV has never taken effect because the State Department refuses to carry it out. The hobbling of Helms-Burton is a stinging insult to the memory of the four murdered men. But the Clinton administration has delivered a cut unkinder still. In 1996, the families of Armando, Carlos, and Mario sued the Cuban government for damages caused by the wrongful deaths of their loved ones, a legal remedy specifically authorized by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. In December 1997, Senior US District Judge James Lawrence King awarded the plaintiffs $187.7 million in damages. ``Cuba's extrajudicial killings . . . were inhumane acts against innocent civilians,'' he wrote in his final judgment. ``The fact that the killings were premeditated and intentional, outside Cuban territory, wholly disproportionate, and executed without warning . . . makes this act unique in its brazen flouting of international norms.'' But when the families attempted to collect their judgment out of frozen Cuban assets, the Clinton administration blocked them. The president famous for feeling people's pain is less concerned with the pain of grief-stricken Americans, it would appear, than with the pain Castro might feel if the judgment were paid. The administration's position is staggering. Castro is an open and declared enemy of the United States and has been for 40 years. In sending combat aircraft to slaughter four unarmed Americans engaged in humanitarian rescue work, he committed an act of war. The response of the United States should have been to remove Castro from power and put him in the dock for crimes against humanity. (for the murder of just ``one'' American in 1989, the United States invaded Panama and seized Manuel Noriega.) Clinton's appeasement of Castro is a cruel betrayal. The families of the dead Brothers of the Rescue deserve better from their government. And the tormented people of Cuba, bleeding under Castro's whip, deserve better from their free and powerful neighbor to the north. Mr. President, it is clear to me that the United States has failed to stand up for the protection of the individual when damaged by international terrorism. I spoke last week about this administration's failure to adequately address terrorism in the Middle East. The pattern remains consistent--appease the enemies of freedom, the advocates of terror, in the hopes that they will not strike again. This approach simply fails. I don't know how to say it any more directly that that. This approach fails. The Congress passed a law last year supporting the awarding of damages from the frozen assets of terrorist states being held by the Treasury Department to American victims. This law can help the families of the Brothers to the Rescue pilots. The President, however, waived this relief asserting our national security interests would be better served by protecting Castro's money. How can this be? Nobody has provided to me an adequate explanation of what interest would cause us protect terrorism and shun American victims. Mr. President, this resolution calls on the United States to stand up for freedom, justice, and human dignity. It states that the President of the United States should lead on this issue by having the United States introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution in Geneva condemning the human rights record of the Cuban government. Mr. President, if there is one time and one place where we are obliged to condemn human rights practices, it is at the UN Commission meeting in Geneva each year. That is what this resolution calls for, and I calls for its immediate passage.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Chafee, Lieberman, and others, in introducing the Credit for Voluntary Early Action Act. This measure is an important first step towards reducing the regulatory uncertainty surrounding any possible regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. This bill will provided us a valuable platform for a thorough discussion of this important issue and I encourage all my colleagues to join us in our efforts. In my state of Florida, we learned long ago that a healthy environment is fundamentally necessary for a healthy economy. This is evidenced by our congressional delegation's historic bipartisan consensus on such important national issues as the protection of the Florida Everglades and our efforts to stop oil and gas exploration off our beaches. The citizens of my state know full well how necessary it is we keep our environment clean and pristine. I'm proud to stand with my colleagues here today and take Florida's common sense, market-based attitude on the environment to the national level. The legislation we're sponsoring today would encourage and reward voluntary actions businesses take to reduce the emission of potentially harmful greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Under our bill, the President would be authorized to provide regulatory credit to companies who take early voluntary action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This credit could be used to comply with future regulatory requirements and--in a market-based approach--traded or sold to other companies as they work to meet their own environmental obligations. Participants in this innovative program would agree to annually measure, track and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions. Credit given would be one-for-one, based on actual reductions below an agreed- upon baseline. Credits issued under the program would be subtracted from total emissions allowed under future regulatory emissions requirements. I believe this approach makes sense for many reasons. For one, there are many uncertainties surrounding the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and their relation to global warming. The complexities and uncertainties associated with understanding the interactions of our climate, our atmosphere and the impact of human behavior are enormous. I have my own concerns about the science behind this issue, and have tremendous concerns about the regulatory approach outlined in last year's Kyoto agreement. It is not my intent--in cosponsoring this bill--to validate Kyoto or the underlying science. Those issues are best left to the scientists and future congresses. Today, we are simply trying to clear the way for voluntary emissions-reductions projects that would otherwise be delayed for years. And we accomplish this in a way that is not costly to the taxpayers. It makes sense to provide appropriate encouragement to businesses who want to invest in improved efficiency--those who want to find ways to make cars, factories and power production cleaner. Under our bill, these companies are encouraged--not based on government fiat or handout--to get credit for their own initiative and problem solving skills. Another reason I believe this legislation would be beneficial is because today's businesses have no control over the regulations that could be required of them down the road. Although today's Congress has no desire to legislate requirements on greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, it is extremely difficult to predict where the scientific and economic data will carry future policymakers. In my view, it makes sense to encourage businesses to be proactive in protecting themselves from any future restrictions enacted by a more regulatory-minded Congress and administration. Mr. President, all of us agree that a healthy environment is important to our future. It's time to put partisanship aside and solve our environmental problem in a way that will allow business to be in control of their own future while doing their part to address global warming. By allowing companies to earn credit for actions they take now, businesses can be prepared for any regulations in the future. I look forward to beginning an earnest debate about this issue with my colleagues in the United States Senate. I believe we have an innovative approach to confronting as issue fraught with uncertainties. We should be looking to solve more of our problems by using our free market philosophy rather than by costly Washington mandates that my not work. The Credit for Voluntary Early Reductions Act is responsible effort to validate on the national level what we've always known in Florida: a healthy environment is key to a healthy economy.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I very recently traveled to Israel. It had been several years since my last visit, and I expected this year we would bring some important measures to the Senate floor. The timeline on the Oslo accords expires in May, and Arafat has threatened to unilaterally declare an independent state. The supplemental appropriations for the Wye River accords will soon be before us, and the timetable on the Jerusalem Embassy Act requires that the President report to the Congress why the United States Embassy has not been set up in Israel's capital city, Jerusalem. I learned a great deal during the week and I rise today to share a few simple thoughts regarding what I saw and what went through my mind as the week in Israel unfolded. Let me begin with the question that is on my mind today: How is it possible to engage in peace negotiations with people who maintain the right to obliterate you, who are filled with hatred toward you, and who harbor the dream of one day destroying your homeland? Peace is a matter of the heart. I believe in the depths of every person's heart is a desire to live in peace. But what I saw, which was the outcome of the Palestinian Authority rule, convinced me that their hearts and minds are set on other goals. The Palestinian leadership does not want peace. They want, first, their own state which they can control with total power. Then they want to use that state to eliminate the State of Israel. Let's be clear. The peace process, to be meaningful, must be about more than rules and laws and lines on a map. We can reach a short-term agreement on these points, but if the Palestinian leadership fails to abandon incitement of hatred, persecution, and terrorism, then we are all dreaming, only dreaming, and our President's behavior must be labeled foolish appeasement. There will not be peace until hearts and minds are changed, and we must focus our attention on these issues. Mr. President, many of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House are aware of the promotion of hatred contained in the Palestinian media, and more significantly in the Palestinian schoolbooks. Let me provide some examples. This is a picture that was taken off of Palestinian Authority- controlled television. It is a picture of a young girl, probably 6 or 7 years old. This is a young girl singing into a microphone. She is on a television show that would be what we would refer to as kind of a Mickey Mouse Club type of show that would be shown to children by the Palestinian Authority. I want to read to you what this little girl is singing. Again, this is a program that was produced by the people who are sitting across the table from you, supposedly negotiating peace. This is what the little girl is singing: When I wander into the entrance of Jerusalem, I'll turn into a suicide warrior in battledress, In battledress. In battledress. There is no way I can convey to you the emotion of actually seeing that scene on television. There is no way I can put the emotion into what she was expressing and the emotion that she was expressing as she sang those words. And after her song, she got an ovation from her classmates and from her teacher. This focuses us on the fundamental difference in approach between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I have a grandson about that age, about the age of that little girl. How would I feel if he were being taught hatred in school? If he were being taught hatred on television, how would I feel? How would you feel if your Government was teaching your children to hate? Could you conclude that they were serious about long- term peace with their neighbors? I also have some examples from Palestinian textbooks for a third- grade grammar lesson. Here is the task: ``Complete the following blank spaces with the appropriate word.'' And the sentence is, ``The Zionist enemy blank civilians with its aircraft.'' The correct answer is, ``The Zionist enemy attacked civilians with its aircraft.'' For seventh graders: ``Answer the following question: Why do the Jews hate Muslim unity and want to cause division among them? Give an example of the evil attempts of the Jews, from events happening today.'' These are from Palestinian textbooks today. One would expect, rather than focus on hatred, if they were serious about peace, they would focus on how the two peoples are working to live side by side. A history book for 12th graders published only last summer teaches: ``The clearest examples of racist belief and racial discrimination in the world are Nazism and Zionism.'' To see this taking place today is chilling. If you can, think about it in the context of being in Israel and being briefed by a member of the Government with respect to what is happening in what they refer to as the anti-incitement committee, which was set up by the Wye Agreement. To be sitting there and seeing this, I must say to you, was chilling. I found it to be extremely chilling. While the Government of Israel makes good-faith efforts to come to a peace agreement, the Palestinian Authority teaches children hatred. This causes me to ask, How can peace be obtained when the children are being taught hatred? Let me share another story. I attended Shabbat dinner at the home of Saul and Wendy Singer in Jerusalem. Saul worked on my staff for 7 years before moving with his wife to Israel. They just had their second child, a girl named Tamar. Wendy told the story of the day she was checking out of the hospital in Jerusalem, 2 days after giving birth. In a very ordinary and matter of fact way, the hospital gave her the necessities for bringing home a newborn baby. In addition to providing for diapers and other things we would expect, she was handed a gas mask for her baby. It is actually a tent which you put your baby under in case of a chemical weapons attack. In Israel, this preparation is routine. Everyone in Israel knows to have a gas mask ready. It just becomes a part of the craziness of everyday life. But when you bring home a newborn baby, when you bring home your baby and you get the chemical weapons tent at the hospital, then you realize how unordinary life is in Israel today. You realize that you are really simply struggling for a normal life, hoping for peace and security, praying to God, while actually living in a war zone. I had another profound meeting during this week. I met one evening privately--secretly--with Arabs who were being persecuted for their Christian faith. I met with about 10 Palestinian Christians. I will tell you just one of their stories, but I will change some of the details to protect the person I am describing. I remember an energetic man, in his early 40s, at the end of the table. I remember him because he seemed so full of life and love. He had a great smile on his face and displayed a wonderful sense of humor. I say this was memorable because, frankly, after hearing what he had been through, I do not know if I could express the sense of peace and love he did. This is his story. He had many children and very little money. He converted to Christianity in 1993. He clearly loved God, and he loved to tell people about his conversion. He described to me how in 1997, the Palestinian Authority asked him to come to the police station for questioning. When he arrived, he was immediately arrested and detained on charges of selling land to Jews. He denied this charge, since he was very poor and owned no land. He was beaten. He was hung from the ceiling by his hands for many hours. He showed me what I just said. He showed me how his hands were tied behind his back and then raised from the floor and hung that way for many, many hours. After 2 weeks, he was transferred to a larger prison where he was held for 8 months without trial. He was released in February 1998, after his family borrowed thousands of dollars to pay off the local authorities. And even though he is free, they are keeping his father in prison. They believe it is for his son's beliefs. He feels his father is being held hostage to prevent him from talking with people about his faith. Needless to say, these Christians met with me at considerable risk. They conveyed to me a message of fear and desperation. But their mere presence in the room with me demonstrated their hope, and it also caused me to ask, how can the people of Israel find peace with the Palestinian Authority while the Palestinian Authority engages in coercion and torture based upon religious beliefs? I also met with the parents of American children killed by Palestinian terrorists. In this meeting, I was struck by the courage displayed by these families after suffering the tremendous loss of a child brutally murdered. These families told me of the hopes and dreams they had for their children. I couldn't help thinking about my own. My daughter, Debbie, traveled with me on this trip. She was in the room as these stories of brutality and murder were related. There was scarcely a dry eye in the room. I am sure Debbie was thinking about her three little boys, ages 14, 11 and 5. We were moved by the comments made by the parents as they described to us what had happened. I understand that the Palestinian Authority knows a great deal about these murderers, but they are not being punished. Some of them have gone to trial and were sentenced, but we don't know if they remain in prison. I was told that we know some have been released. There are reports that the Palestinian Authority allows them to leave prison each day and return in the evening--like free room and board more than like prison. I was also presented with stories of the lionization of these murderers in the press and again in the classrooms. Try to imagine how you would feel, try to imagine what would be going through your mind when you are dealing with the grief of the loss of your child. You know who is responsible. You know they know who is responsible. You saw them go on trial. You saw them then released. You have to ask yourself, what are we going through this peace process for? I would like to mention one story of many that I heard. Mrs. Dosberg sat directly across the table from me. When she told us of the loss of her daughter and son-in-law, the lesson of these murders became so clear--we must fight terror and we cannot back off. Mrs. Dosberg's family, her daughter, American son-in-law, and their 9-month-old daughter attended a wedding in central Israel on June 9, 1996. They decided not to bring their 2-year-old daughter along. Thank God. On the way home from the wedding they were stopped by Palestinian terrorists and killed in a so-called drive-by shooting. Fifty bullets were found to have been used in this murder, and yet, by some miracle, the baby survived. Even with a crime this gross, the Palestinian Authority did not arrest everyone involved or suspected in the shooting. One of those who remained free, it is believed, later took part in the bombing of the Apropos Cafe, killing many others. Another suspected killer, according to the Israeli Justice Ministry, was under arrest but given permission to come and go as he pleases from prison. Mohammed Dief, another suspected Palestinian terrorist, took part in the murder of two other Americans, at two different times, according to the mothers with whom I spoke. Mrs. Sharon Weinstock lost her 19-year- old son in a drive-by shooting masterminded by Dief. And only a year later, Mrs. Wachsman told me of the kidnap-murder of their son, also believed to have been planned by Dief. I am told Mohammed Dief remains a free man today. The obvious lesson--terrorists kill and those who are not jailed remain free to kill and to kill again thanks to the Palestinian Authority. How would I feel in their place? I couldn't keep the thought from my mind, as I listened. If I had lost a child and knew that the murderer or accomplices were on the loose, how would I feel? And if I knew the killer remained free to kill other people's children, how would I feel? It is so hard, hard to even consider, but I do know that I left there committed to doing whatever I could to help each of those families. Once again, I began to better understand the way the Palestinian Authority leadership was approaching peace. How can one find peace with people who do not condemn terrorism? Mr. President, how is it possible to engage in peace negotiations with people who want to teach their children to die in a holy war against you? How is it possible to engage in peace negotiations with people who persecute those of other faiths? How is it possible to engage in peace negotiations with people who keep terrorists on the loose to wreak havoc and evil against you and praise them for heroism? Today the Israeli people are exhausted by 50 years of violence against their homes and families, of sending their sons and daughters into the army, and they dream of a promised peace now. This is our hope and our dream as well. But we must not get confused. History is replete with examples of compromises which bring terror and destroy dreams. In the United States, many people seem to think that if we do not confront these obstacles to peace and if we look the other way, then we will be able to come to an agreement. The reality, however, is just the opposite. If we do not acknowledge the attitudes and acts of those at the peace table, then the peace process is already over, and we just won't admit it. In other words, the surest way to kill the peace process is to avoid confrontation, to fear upsetting a belligerent force and to avoid addressing incitement, violence, persecution and terrorism. The only way to keep the peace process alive is to focus on truth, freedom, security and justice. Israeli efforts, to date, have sought to keep the peace process alive, improve security during the negotiating process, and obtain reciprocity as a vital element of implementation. The process remains alive, but terrorism continues and is exalted by many in the Palestinian Authority, and reciprocity does not exist. The United States role has been to seek the middle ground. Unfortunately, this only rewards those willing to go to new extremes. The middle ground between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat is not halfway between the two. The United States must not engage in moral equivocation. We must not shy away from holding Arafat responsible for acts of violence, incitement and persecution. The United States must demonstrate principled leadership and end the appeasement that perpetuates the cycle of violence. The peace process can only work when leaders uphold their agreements and answer to the people, and the United States remains a vigilant defender of the principles which bind us to Israel: freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. What should we do? I believe there are three things. First, we should insist upon the strict adherence to Oslo and the reciprocity codified at Wye. The purpose of the Wye accord was at long last to force the Palestinians to comply with commitments before further territory would be turned over. So at Wye, Israel agreed only to turn over territory in phases, in which it could verify Palestinian compliance at each and every step. In the first phase, Israel completed its redeployment after the Palestinian Authority completed its tasks. In phase 2, the Palestinians did not meet all their obligations and, therefore, Israel has not yet turned over the additional land. Reciprocity makes no sense unless it is based upon this formulation. Once Israel has ceded territory, it is unlikely it ever could recover it. The Palestinians, on the other hand, can turn on and off their promises. In fact, this is exactly what they have done. Second, we should stop paying Arafat. Any funds provided to the Palestinian people should continue to go through private voluntary organizations. We should also monitor much more closely the rampant corruption and mismanagement of funds provided currently. And third, we must aggressively seek the bringing to justice of Palestinian terrorists who killed American citizens. I am told that our Justice Department can do a better job here, that they have a great deal of information on the murderers of the Americans who are free in the Palestinian areas and, indeed, can make some requests for indictments. It is time to do this. Let's put the needs of the American families and other victims' families over the needs of those engaging in or supporting terrorism. Mr. President, these are very basic principles. I am not discussing today the intricacies of the peace process, U.S. funding, embassies, or any other number of issues we will be discussing this year in the Senate. We need to focus on a more fundamental level first. And I hope that this message will be heard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. What I mean when I say this is that I hope the President will hear the message. I say this from a standpoint not of arrogance, not of confrontation, and I do not mean it in a political way. I just hope that the President will listen and take another look at what he and his foreign policy team are trying to force the Israeli Government to do. There cannot be peace until there is a change of heart. I returned from this trip with a newfound concern for the future of Israel. I saw examples of incitement. I heard examples of persecution and hatred being taught throughout Palestinian society by their leaders. When the people engaged in peace talks return from the negotiating table only to disparage compromise and incite violence, there can be no progress towards peace. Israel has come a long way since I first began following the fate of this state and the people of Israel. In so many respects, life appears and feels normal. The economy is developing, the standard of living is growing and improving. But just below the surface of this normalcy, Mr. President, Israel still faces a threat to the state's very existence. Israel's survival remains, unfortunately, a very real and central concern 50 years after its independence. Some people believe, however, that by ignoring this threat, that the peace process can succeed. Mr. President, it will fail. It is clear to me that many in the Palestinian leadership today see the peace process toward the goal of eliminating the State of Israel. I suggest today that we get back to the basics. Peace is not possible while teaching children to hate and kill. Peace is not possible while persecuting those of other faiths. Peace is not possible while lionizing terrorism. We must stand up for freedom, security, and human dignity. We must stand up to ensure the security of Israel. We must stand up in the Congress, and we must insist that our President stand with us. Today is the day to end American pressure on Israel to force a peace agreement. Today is the day to remember it is up to the people of Israel to determine their own fate--their own security. We should pressure those who fill children with slogans of hatred and holy war; we should pressure them to change. We should pressure those who torture; we should pressure them to change. We should pressure those who encourage and support terror and murder, and those who rejoice in hatred. That is where the pressure should be. Now is the time, Mr. President, for a return to our principled stand. The only way to truly attain peace is to support freedom, democracy and justice, and oppose the cycle of hatred. We must face tyranny and oppression where it exists, condemn it, and stand up for peace--real peace based upon security, freedom, and a change of heart.

Mr. MACK

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

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for not to exceed 30 minutes. I hope I will not use the full 30 minutes.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 10 through 13, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 4. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Gorton, 20 minutes; Senator Kerrey, 20 minutes; Senator Abraham, 15 minutes; Senator Graham, 10 minutes, Senator Warner, 10 minutes; Senator Akaka, 5 minutes; and Senator Murray, 10 minutes.

Mr. MACK. I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 280, the education flexibility partnership bill, and Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer an amendment regarding dropouts.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. and begin a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the education flexibility bill, with Senator Bingaman being recognized immediately to offer an amendment regarding dropouts. Rollcall votes are possible throughout Thursday's session, as the Senate continues to offer and debate amendments to the Ed-Flex bill. The leader would like to notify all Members that if the Senate is still considering the Ed-Flex bill, rollcall votes are expected up until noon on Friday, with a vote on Monday expected at approximately 5 p.m. All Members will be notified as to the exact voting schedule when it becomes available.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.