Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, to clarify various provisions in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 and discuss the understandings reached among conferees regarding these provisions. Section 508 requires a disregard of earned income under some circumstances, including persons who obtain employment after one year of unemployment. The rules defining ``unemployment'' for this purpose should provide sufficient flexibility so that a family member who may have a brief, temporary period of employment during the preceding year would not be ineligible for the disregard. At the same time, the rules must not encourage households to change their employment patterns to take advantage of the disregard. Section 519 provides guidance for a new Operating Fund formula, including that agencies will ``benefit'' from increases in rental income due to increases in earned income by families in occupancy. The extent of this benefit will be determined in the negotiated rulemaking on the Operating Fund formula. More generally, the Operating Fund formula should not be skewed against or discourage mixing of incomes in public housing that is consistent with the bill's objectives. With respect to the Capital Fund formula, the possibility of having an incentive to encourage agencies to leverage other resources, including through mixed-finance transactions, should be considered during the negotiated rulemaking process. Section 520 amends the current definition of total development costs, but retains the current law directive in section 6(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act that these guidelines are to allow publicly bid construction of good and sound quality. In the past, HUD has not interpreted this reference in a way that allows for sufficiently durable construction, of a nature that will reduce maintenance and repair costs and will assure that public housing meets reasonable community standards. The Department should interpret this section as requiring the use of indices such as the R.S. Means cost index for construction of ``average'' quality and the Marshal & Swift cost index for construction of ``good'' quality. Where a family is relocated due to demolition or disposition, voluntary conversion of a development to tenant-based assistance or homeownership (sections 531, 533 and 536), the family must be offered comparable housing that is located in an area that is generally not less desirable than the location of the displaced resident's housing. For purposes of this provision, the phrase ``location of the displaced resident's housing'' may be construed to mean the public housing development from which the family was vacated, rather than a larger geographic area. Where a family is relocated due to demolition or disposition, voluntary or required conversion of public housing to tenant-based assistance or a homeownership program (sections 531, 533, 536 and 537), relocation may be to another public housing unit of the agency at a rental rate that is comparable to the rental rate applicable to the unit from which the family is vacated. However, this requirement does not mean that the rental rate always must be exactly the same. Specifically, if the agency has exercised its discretionary authority in the initial unit to charge less than thirty percent of adjusted income and that authority would be inapplicable to or inappropriate for the new unit, the comparable rent could be a rent that would apply if this discretionary authority had not been exercised (i.e., up to thirty percent of adjusted income). With respect to public housing demolition (section 531), the conference report does not include a provision from the Senate bill that would deem applications approved if HUD did not respond within 60 days. However, HUD is urged to continue processing applications responsibly and expeditiously. In the same section, references to demolition or disposition of a ``project'' may be applied to portions of projects where only portions are undergoing demolition or disposition. In the provisions for voluntary or required conversion of public housing to vouchers (sections 533 and 537), residents of affected developments are to be provided notification that they can remain in their dwelling unit and use tenant-based assistance if the affected development or portion is to be used as housing. In many such instances, the development may be undergoing rehabilitation, reconfiguration or demolition and new construction. If so, the resident would be entitled to stay in the same development and use tenant-based assistance, but not necessarily the same dwelling unit. The bill provides for the possibility of transfer of housing from an agency to an eligible management entity due to the mismanagement of the agency (section 534). Such mismanagement may relate to a single housing development, rather than more widespread mismanagement. With respect to the definition of ``mixed-finance projects'' in section 539, the requirement that a project is financially assisted by private resources means that the private resources must be greater than a de minimis amount. In addition, in the same section, new Section 35(h) of the 1937 Act applies only to a mixed-finance project that has a ``significant number'' of units other than public housing units. Therefore, this section would not apply to a mixed-finance project which had only a de minimis number of units other than public housing units. It is intended that wherever appropriate in programs authorized throughout the bill, reasonable accommodation be made for persons with disabilities. This would apply, for example, in homeownership programs authorized by section 536. With respect to the setting of voucher payment standards authorized by section 545, agencies are urged to make payment standard adjustments to facilitate reasonable availability of suitable and accessible units and assure full participation of persons with disabilities. Subject to the availability of funds, HUD also should allow administrative fee adjustments to cover any necessary additional expenses for serving persons with disabilities fully, such as additional counseling expenses. The provision allowing HUD to phase in the new Section 8 law, section 559, provides HUD the flexibility to apply current law to assistance obligated before October 1, 1999. This language is intended to be construed so that HUD may continue for as long as necessary to apply current law to families now assisted by Section 8, to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleague John Breaux in sponsoring the Medicare Psychiatric Hospital Prospective Payment System Act of 1998. This legislation maintains the integrity and availability of Medicare inpatient psychiatric care by changing how Medicare currently pays for services provided to beneficiaries in free standing psychiatric hospitals and distinct-part psychiatric units of general hospitals. This bill eases the transition of psychiatric facilities to a prospective payment system (PPS) while phasing in substantial cuts in payments to these providers as required by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Currently, psychiatric hospitals and units are exempt from PPS. This bill is budget neutral over five years, and ensures that until PPS is established, inpatient psychiatric care will not be compromised or disrupted because of major budget reductions. Finally, this legislation prevents the type of dislocations we now face in the Home Health Care industry. The purpose of this bill is to give psychiatric facilities a period of adjustment to the mandates of BBA while not jeopardizing patient care. It provides for a transition period that will help providers adjust to a prospective payment system that will be installed in three years. At the end of this time period psychiatric facilities will be paid on a prospective payment basis like other hospital providers in the Medicare program. Psychiatric hospital managers understand that the financial limitations imposed by BBA on their facilities must be met, and this bill smooths out the requirements for accomplishing this in such a way that the integrity of patient care is maintained. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, last year I joined the distinguished senior Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, in introducing a bill to authorize the placement of a memorial to Mohandas K.--Mahatma--Gandhi, on Federal land in the District of Columbia in the vicinity of the Indian Embassy. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. I am pleased to report that the House unanimously passed their version of this bill on September 15 and it now rests here in the Senate awaiting our action. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this bill and it is for this reason that I rise today. The proposed memorial will comply with the Commemorative Works Act and will be placed at no cost to the U.S. government; the Indian government will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the memorial. In addition, the National Capital Memorial Commission and the National Park Service have designated and approved the site. At midnight on August 15, 1947, 400 million people received their independence and an institution in world history came to an end. This is the date that India became a free nation, and the mighty British empire, in effect, ceased to exist. One man more than any other is credited with bringing this profound change to the world. Dressed in white homespun cloth, with only a handful of worldly possessions, Mohandas Gandhi--known as Mahatma, or ``Great Soul''--showed the world that dedication to principles, and belief in reconciliation, can prevail over otherwise insurmountable odds. Best known for his civil disobedience characterized by nonviolence and passive resistance, Mahatma Gandhi is revered by millions throughout the world for his dedication to personal freedom, justice, and human rights. Gandhi is not only the father of modern India, but a leader whose impact changed the world forever. Gandhi influenced great champions of freedom throughout the world including Lech Walesa of Poland, the Dalai Lama of Tibet and Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. Albert Einstein said of Gandhi, ``Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood.'' Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said of Gandhi's importance to the world, ``We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk.'' And Gandhi himself had strong ties to the United States. He acknowledged being influenced in his own thinking by Henry David Thoreau, as well as by the U.S. Constitution. Mr. President, the story of India's recent history is the story of people struggling for freedom--and this struggle is universal. Gandhi has made us all richer in our freedom through his life's work and sacrifice. The right thing for this body to do is to support the Indian government's efforts to erect this memorial; it will be a gift to the American people symbolic of the greater gift we received more than fifty years ago from Mahatma Gandhi.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my colleague John Breaux in sponsoring the Medicare Psychiatric Hospital Prospective Payment System Act of 1998. This legislation maintains the integrity and availability of Medicare inpatient psychiatric care by changing how Medicare currently pays for services provided to beneficiaries in free standing psychiatric hospitals and distinct-part psychiatric units of general hospitals. This bill eases the transition of psychiatric facilities to a prospective payment system (PPS) while phasing in substantial cuts in payments to these providers as required by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Currently, psychiatric hospitals and units are exempt from PPS. This bill is budget neutral over five years, and ensures that until PPS is established, inpatient psychiatric care will not be compromised or disrupted because of major budget reductions. Finally, this legislation prevents the type of dislocations we now face in the Home Health Care industry. The purpose of this bill is to give psychiatric facilities a period of adjustment to the mandates of BBA while not jeopardizing patient care. It provides for a transition period that will help providers adjust to a prospective payment system that will be installed in three years. At the end of this time period psychiatric facilities will be paid on a prospective payment basis like other hospital providers in the Medicare program. Psychiatric hospital managers understand that the financial limitations imposed by BBA on their facilities must be met, and this bill smooths out the requirements for accomplishing this in such a way that the integrity of patient care is maintained. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment which would allow some states to tax the Internet but not others. The moratorium on Internet taxation must be uniform, applying equally to all states and all local taxing jurisdictions without exception. Congress is taking an extraordinary, though not unprecedented, step in preempting a taxing power of the states. The people of the United States, through the Constitution, charge Congress with the responsibility of ensuring that states do not interfere with interstate commerce. This power is rarely exercised in the context of taxation, and is a power that we take very seriously. Use of this extraordinary power is required to prevent the heavy hands of government from stifling the economic growth potential of Internet commerce. We have now just a glimpse of the future of commerce, and a complete revolution in the way people transact business is within sight. We are on the threshold of exciting times, in which information about products will move quicker and farther than ever imagined, in which the elderly, the handicapped, and people living in remote rural areas can participate in world markets without ever leaving their homes. A moratorium is necessary to prevent the taxing authorities of 50 states, over 6,000 localities, and the federal government from taking near-sighted actions that jeopardize this future of commerce. A threat to interstate commerce so severe as to require a national moratorium cannot be tolerated in any state. If Congress were to grandfather those states that have already imposed Internet taxes, we would be setting a terrible precedent. This ``Early Bird Special'' exception gives states the incentive to rush to impose new taxes on new technologies. This is not the kind of race we want to encourage. And if Congress can impose a moratorium on some states but not others, will future Congresses attempt to disadvantage individual states in this manner? The defenders of a grandfather clause cast their argument as one of states' rights. But establishing the principle that a moratorium must apply equally to all states protect states from unwarranted infringements upon their power, by preventing the federal government from isolating a minority of states for adverse treatment. And I should also point out that states do not have the right to interfere with interstate commerce--the power to regulate interstate commerce was delegated to the national government, not retained by the states. The United States should set a strong example and preempt all Internet taxes until a rational, national approach to Internet taxation is developed. If we fail to do so, we undermine attempts to persuade our trading partners that barriers to global electronic commerce should be removed. We have the opportunity to lead the world in the area of Internet commerce, and we should make our cause the cause of freedom. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

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

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, the Agriculture Appropriations bill, with the reading of the conference report being waived.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Mack pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 286 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

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

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the 300th anniversary of the City of Pensacola, Florida. Although November 21, 1998 will mark the 300th anniversary of the continuous settlement of Pensacola, the origins of Pensacola are much older. In 1559, Don Tristan de Luna y Arellano led the first authorized attempt to colonize what eventually became known as Pensacola. The first attempt at colonization failed, however, and the Spanish were forced to withdraw in 1561. The Spanish did not attempt to colonize the area again until 1698. Since 1698, Pensacola has flown the Spanish flag, the French flag, the British flag, the Confederate flag, and the American flag over the City. Each flag left its mark upon the City and their historical presence is still evident today. Pensacola honors its heritage each year with the Fiesta of Five Flags celebration. The presence of the United States Navy has also had an impact upon Pensacola. In the 1820s, a Navy Yard was established in Pensacola. The Navy Yard was closed in 1911, but in a few short years Pensacola was selected as the site of a ``Naval flying school.'' Today, pilots still seek flight training at the Pensacola Naval Air Station which has been called the ``Cradle of Naval Aviation.'' Pensacola's deep and sheltered bay, sugar white beaches, friendly residents, and Southern hospitality continues to charm visitors today. Over the past three hundred years, the community has hosted such visitors as General Andrew Jackson and entertainer Bob Hope. On November 21, 1998, Pensacola will celebrate its 300th anniversary at the site of the former Spanish settlement which today is part of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. This historic event will be commemorated with a celebration which will include a parade and fireworks. As a United States Senator from the State of Florida, it gives me great pleasure to wish the City of Pensacola a happy 300th anniversary. I wish the City of Pensacola all the best for a fun-filled celebration.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this morning I have sent a resolution to the desk commending Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa for a remarkable baseball season. I suspect that many of our colleagues in the Senate, and the entire Nation, for that matter, were focused on that last couple of weeks, the contest between those two individuals. I think, at least from my perspective as I watched events unfold, there were times people would come up to me and ask, Who do you want to win? My reaction was--like, I suspect, many others'--it would have been great if it was a tie. The way the two individuals interacted with each other and their attitude about the game were just, I think, a remarkable statement.

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. The first backfilling contract is scheduled to be awarded on March 30, 1999. For this contract to be awarded, the Corps has indicated that between $22 and $23 million must be appropriated for this project. Today we are reviewing an Energy and Water appropriations bill that includes only $8 million for the Kissimmee River project.

Mr. MACK. The Kissimmee River restoration project is at a critical phase. With the current funding levels in the 1999 Energy and Water appropriations bill, this project will not move forward. We both understand the difficult nature of funding decisions in these times of tight budgets, but we also recognize the responsibility of the federal government to meet its costshare requirements with the state of Florida and fund the construction phase of this project.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come before the Senate in support of today's colloquy regarding Federal judgeship needs in Florida. Although I was unable to participate in the colloquy between my esteemed colleagues, Senators Hatch and Graham, I wish to express my support for their position. It is my hope that the Judiciary Committee will lend serious consideration to Florida's unique and acute judgeship needs. The pressures currently upon Florida's court system, particularly in the Middle District, are some of the most severe in the nation. The Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended three permanent district judgeships and one temporary judgeship for the Middle District. This is the most judgeships recommended for any federal district in the nation. Statistics kept by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts underscore the need for additional judgeships in this district. Recent statistics place Florida's Middle District second in the nation in weighted case filings per judge, with an average of 855. This is far above the national average of 519 weighted case filings per judge. It is expected that these numbers will continue to climb, given this area's explosive population growth. Although fifty-five percent of Florida's population currently resides in the Middle District, the district is home to only one-third of the state's federal judges. According to projected population growth figures, the Middle District will comprise two-thirds of the state's population by the year 2005. The Middle District contains some of the world's most frequently visited cities, beaches and tourist attractions, including Disney World in Orlando and Busch Gardens in Tampa. The heavy flow of both tourists and the ``snowbird'' population serve to make the needs of this judicial district unique. Adding to this problem, what will be the nation's largest federal prison, the Coleman Prison Complex, is scheduled to be completed in 1999 in the Middle District. This will place an additional strain on the already overburdened courts of this district due to increased prisoner petitions. Further complicating the problem, a portion of the Middle District has recently been designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. An increase in drug cases will result as criminals are apprehended and prosecuted, placing additional demands upon this district. It is not possible to provide Floridians with a safe environment and access to justice unless there is a court system in place which can handle the demands of this dynamic and growing part of our country. Increased judicial resources are integral in providing such a court system. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S.1873, the American Missile Protection Act of 1998 drafted by Senators Cochran and Inouye. While I have been an ardent supporter of a vigorous missile defense program with a specific architecture and under a specific deployment schedule, a sufficient minority of members has been able to derail this effort over the last few years. Therefore, the modest proposal under consideration today, is an attempt to compromise by affirmatively establishing as U.S. policy the deployment of an effective National Missile Defense (NMD) system as soon as technologically possible. I have long argued that such a system is both necessary and prudent because the threat of an attack or an inadvertent launch did not end with the termination of the cold war, but is real and continues to grow. In fact, the threat is greater today than any time in United States history. The technology revolution aids equally those who want to bring good into the world, as well as those who would do harm. Recent activities in Africa, namely the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the launch of ballistic missiles (or a satellite) by North Korea, as well as the shoot-down of two unarmed American aircraft in the Florida straits two years ago, reminds us of the threat the United States and our allies face from rogue and terrorist states, and non-state actors. Beyond these, the future of Russia and China remains unclear. While we wait to see if the forces of freedom and democracy prevail in the internal struggles happening in these countries, we must remember that they maintain the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction. Other states continue efforts to develop destructive capabilities. Recently, Iran has made dramatic progress in its missile development. We know that China's proliferation has aided the development of Pakistan's nuclear program, adding to the instability of South Asia. My primary concern with the Administration's ``plan'' on deploying an anti-ballistic missile defense system is that it is premised on deploying a system within three years of clearly identifying an emerging threat. I believe the Administration greatly overestimates its intelligence gathering capability. In early 1997, a CIA official testified that Iran was not expected to have the capability to field a medium range ballistic missile until 2007. Less than a year later, that nine year time frame was significantly reduced by the CIA, and another Administration official predicted Iran could have the capability in as early as one-and-a-half years. Similarly, in 1997 the Department of Defense only credited Pakistan with a 300 km capability. However, less than six months later Pakistan launched a missile capable of traveling 1,500 km. Based on past performance, I am very hesitant to base the fielding of a missile defense system on the Administration's determination of the existence of an emerging threat. I believe such a plan is grossly inadequate and could have catastrophic consequences for the American people.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to support the proposed amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against tabling it. The current world economic crises and the International Monetary Fund's request for financial replenishment offer us a chance to re- examine the United States' role in the world economy. If the U.S. is going to participate in institutions that influence economic policy around the world, then we must exert our influence in strong support of sound economic policies, not just rubber-stamp whatever plans international bureaucrats cook up. It does us no good to stand idly by and let the IMF squander our resources on ill-conceived rescue plans, such as the tax-hike package recently foisted on Russia. What should the IMF be promoting? The same policies that we support here in the United States. To name just a few, these include: a monetary policy dedicated to long-term price stability, a sensible tax system that encourages people to work, save and invest, free and open markets and sound banking systems that use consistent accounting methods, have transparent balance sheets and lend based on market forces, not political pressure. The best way to start down this path is to set strong conditions on the IMF. This amendment moves us in this direction. In particular, it would promote free trade, market-based lending and the fair treatment of international investors. I urge my colleagues to vote against tabling it.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato, to ensure that every classroom in America is staffed with a competent, qualified and caring teacher. During the past several months, Congress has debated a number of initiatives to further this goal, including an amendment that Senator D'Amato and I introduced and passed as part of the Education Savings Accounts package. Our amendment passed with bipartisan support, and we are here today to pursue this legislation in light of the President's veto of the ESA bill. As early as the 1890s, the United States was the world's premiere industrial power, boasting a manufacturing sector roughly equal to that of Great Britain, Germany and France combined. While relatively new, this industrial order grew at a remarkable pace, leading many to concur with Teddy Roosevelt's prediction that the Twentieth Century would be ``America's Century.'' As we stand at the edge of a new millennium, another economic revolution in underway. But unlike the industrial revolution of one hundred years ago, this new revolution is defined not by large factories and natural resources, but by something a little less tangible and a little more human. I believe the 21st Century will be known as the ``Century of Knowledge,'' where ingenuity and innovation will prove to be the most critical of resources. Now, if our children are to be prepared for the challenges ahead, educational excellence must become our first order of business. The President has placed education near the top of his domestic agenda. I am pleased that he, too, recognizes the importance of providing our children with an education second to none. This is an area where we can easily agree. However, I am discouraged that none of his proposals confronts the most basic, the most important, and the most neglected aspect of public education: the quality of instruction in the classroom. It cannot be overstated that the best teachers produce the best students. Unless the quality of teaching improves, all other very worthwhile reforms, from smaller classes and higher salaries to newer buildings and computers in the classroom--are meaningless. Good teachers are the backbone to a good education. Every student in America has a fundamental right to be taught by a skilled and well- prepared teacher. Teachers make all the difference in the learning process. America's classrooms are staffed with many dedicated, knowledgeable, and hardworking teachers. Studies show again and again that teacher expertise is one of the most important factors in determining student achievement. Nevertheless, the case for sweeping reform is not difficult to make. The United States already spends more money per pupil than virtually any industrialized democracy in the world. Nonetheless, our children frequently score near the bottom in international exams in science and math. If the teacher-student relationship--which in my opinion is the most basic building-block in the educational process--is defective, no amount of resources will be able to turn bad schools into good schools. Throwing more money at the problem is no longer the answer. Again, real reforms are needed. Mr. President, real education reform begins in America's classrooms. Any reform must include measures to ensure that teachers are qualified to teach the subjects they are teaching. To my dismay, I have learned that all across the country, many teachers are being assigned to teach classes for which they have no formal training. Consider these statistics: One out of five English classes were taught by teachers who did not have at least a minor in English, literature, communications, speech, journalism, English education, or reading education. One out of four mathematics classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in mathematics or mathematics education. Nearly 4 out of 10 life science or biology classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in biology or life science. More than half of physical science classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in physics, chemistry, geology or earth science. More than half of history or world civilization classes were taught by teachers who did not have at least a minor in history. Students in schools with the highest minority enrollments have less than a 50% chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who holds a license and a degree in the field he or she teaches. Our schools and classrooms should be staffed with teachers who have the appropriate training and background. One way to determine this would be to test teachers on their knowledge of the subject areas they teach. Teacher testing is an important first step toward upgrading the quality of classroom instruction. Testing would identify teachers who are not making the grade, and would enable principals to help weaker teachers improve. Much has been made about social promotion, where students are often pushed on to the next grade with his or her peers despite the fact that the student has not met the criteria needed to advance. In my opinion, teachers face social promotion too. They are kept on staff regardless of performance. That is wrong. States should measure the expertise of their teachers through periodic teacher testing. Common sense also dictates that we should not concentrate all our attention on underperforming teachers. We must also recognize that there are many great teachers who are successfully challenging their students on a daily basis. Today, our public schools compensate teachers based almost solely on seniority, not on their performance inside the classroom. Merit-pay would differentiate between teachers who are hard-working and inspiring, and those who fall short. The legislation we are introducing today, known as the MERIT ACT-- which stands for Measures to Enhance Results in Teaching--is the same legislation that passed the Senate during debate on the Education Savings Accounts bill. It rewards states that test its teachers on their subject matter knowledge, and pays its teachers based on merit. Here is how it works: we will make half of any additional funding over the FY 1999 level for the Eisenhower Professional Development Program available to states that periodically test elementary and secondary school teachers, and reward teachers based on merit and proven performance. There will be NO reduction in current funding to states under this program based on this legislation. As funding increases for this program, so will the amount each state receives. Incentives will and should be provided to those states that take the initiative to establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. Again, I want to emphasize that all current money being spent on this program is unaffected by this legislation. Only additional money will be used as an incentive for states to enact teacher testing and merit pay programs. Finally, this amendment enables states to also use federal education money to establish and administer teacher testing and merit pay programs. This broad approach will enable states to staff their schools with the best and most qualified teachers, thereby enhancing learning for all students. In turn, teachers can be certain that all of their energy, dedication and expertise will be rewarded. And it can be done without placing new mandates on states or increasing the federal bureaucracy. Mr. President, as I pointed out earlier, the Senate has already debated this innovative approach when we considered the Education Savings Accounts bill. I was impressed that we passed the amendment with bipartisan support by a vote of 63-35, and that it was included in the Conference report sent to the President for his signature. I was disappointed, however, when the President vetoed that important legislation on July 22, 1998, despite his own earlier involvement in developing a teacher testing program in his home state of Arkansas while he was Governor. As Governor, Bill Clinton enthusiastically supported teacher testing, and while Governor of South Carolina, Secretary of Education Richard Riley advocated a merit-pay plan. In fact, then-Governor Clinton in 1984 said that he was more convinced than ever that competency tests were needed to take inventory of teacher' basic skills. He said, ``Teachers who don't pass the test shouldn't be in the classroom''. Since coming to Washington, however, neither the President nor Secretary Riley has tried to do for the children of America what they as Governors fought to do for the children of their own states. Our nation's children deserve better. While Bill Clinton let an opportunity for true reform pass him by, I am encouraged by the recent action taken by the American Federation of Teachers. They, too, recognize that true reform begins in the classroom and that teacher quality must be at the heart of that reform. They recently passed a resolution affirming the need for improved teacher quality, which also states that they will take a more active role in reviewing teacher performance and dismissing teachers that cannot be helped. This same proposal was rejected two years ago by the Federation's membership. Again, I am encouraged by this change of heart. I am hopeful that we can work together with the AFT and any other organization interested in moving forward to improve teacher quality. While we may not agree on every approach, I would like to commence an ongoing dialogue on this important issue. Mr. President, I must also point out how timely this legislation is in light of the recent reports out of the state of Massachusetts, which tested prospective teachers with a tenth-grade level exam. Sadly, 60 percent of those taking the test failed. It's unfortunate that the poor results of the test overshadow the positive contributions teachers make day in and day out to challenge the imagination of their students. That's why it's important to help teachers become the best they can be and to reward the outstanding teachers who are making a difference in the lives of our youth. Our children deserve nothing less. That's what this legislation does. The President's lack of support for merit pay and teacher testing has only temporarily set back the call for excellence in education. But I will continue to press forward with plans to ensure that our classrooms are led by capable teachers, and I will continue the fight to give dedicated professionals who teach our children a personal stake in the quality of the instruction they provide. If we accomplish these reforms, and place the interests of students above the preservation of the status quo, then the extraordinary dynamism of the American people will continue, and the 21st Century will, once again, be the ``American Century''. I hope there will again be broad, bipartisan support for this important initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee in a colloquy regarding threat emitters used to support electronic combat training by the Air Force Special Operations Command as well as testing by the Air Force and other services. These emitters replicate the surface-to-air missile threats and jammers which our combat aircraft might encounter if deployed to execute a real mission--a mission which would take them into harm's way. It is essential that these systems be available to train our first to fight, the special operations forces.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my colleague is correct. We cannot let ambiguity about words hinder the training and readiness of our forces. These emitters should be supported at Eglin until we can resolve these issues. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee if he can assist us by working on this issue in the appropriations conference if we can find a solution. We will work with the Department of Defense as well as the defense authorizing committees to find a solution which can be accommodated in the defense appropriations conference.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the federal government should be encouraging private industry's involvement and investment in space, not competing with it and in some cases, stifling it. I am afraid that if we do not act on and pass this amendment, we will continue to encourage American companies to move their operations overseas. Companies need consistent government policy that encourages the development of new technology through private investment. We should enable private companies to locate and conduct their business here at home. This growing sector of the economy provides jobs to many highly- skilled and technically-trained workers. To put it into perspective, industry revenues have exceeded $7.5 billion. Commercial space businesses have grown faster than the economy and have been relatively recession proof. Senator Graham and I have proposed a number of balanced changes to current law. Among them, our amendment requires a study by NASA to identify commercial opportunities and interest in servicing the International Space Station. Second, we authorize the Office of Commercial Space Transportation to license commercial providers to re- enter Earth's atmosphere and return payloads to Earth. Currently, only the Federal Government is permitted to do so. Third, we encourage the President to enter into regional agreements with foreign governments to secure the U.S. Global Positioning System as the world's standard. Finally, we require the federal government to procure commercial space transportation services. Space is a frontier for research and exploration. The Federal Government's investments in space technology have provided the private sector with impressive capabilities that can benefit both our citizens and the economy. It is now the private sector's challenge to make commercial space activities earn a profit. The role of the Federal Government should be to provide stable and supportive policies for these activities. Mr. President, we are moving into the 21st century. However, the laws regulating this industry are decades old. It is critical that we update them. The Senate Commerce Committee reported this bill favorably on June 2, 1998, and the House passed a similar version on November 4, 1997. I hope it will receive broad, bipartisan support.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Graham/Mack immigration amendment to the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill. I strongly believe that this amendment is the right thing to do for the Haitian community and that it is consistent with our treatment of similarly-situated immigrant groups. I would like to provide the Senate with some background information on what has led Senator Graham and me to introduce this amendment, a brief explanation of the amendment, and the policy rationale behind the amendment. First of all, some legislative history on events leading up to the introduction of this amendment. Last year, Senator Graham and I introduced legislation which was intended to ease the transition into implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, otherwise known as IRAIRA. Our bill simply clarified that immigrants who were in the administrative pipeline for suspension of deportation when IRAIRA was enacted would have their cases for suspension considered under the rules in place when they applied for suspension, not the new rules contemplated by IRAIRA. I was concerned with the unfairness of changing the rules on people midstream. While this bill was under consideration in the Senate, an agreement was reached in the House of Representatives which gave even greater relief to the Nicaraguan community--the ability to adjust to legal permanent resident status. Once it was apparent that Nicaraguans would be granted the opportunity to adjust to legal permanent resident status, the Haitian community made an attempt to be included in the relief. Although they, too, had a compelling case, it was not possible to include them in the final bill at that point in the negotiations. However, Senator Graham and I made a commitment to seek appropriate relief for the Haitians this Congress, and received assurances from the Administration that they would defer potential deportation decisions of the affected Haitians until after Congress had an opportunity to consider legislative relief. This amendment, identical in text to Senate bill 1504, which was reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee, would provide permanent resident status to certain Haitians who fled Haiti after the Aristide regime was toppled in a brutal military coup in 1991 and were either paroled into the country or applied for asylum by December 31, 1995. This amendment is more narrow than the legislation passed last year which gave permanent resident status to Nicaraguans, since the scope and number of people covered is much smaller. Under last year's bill, nearly every Nicaraguan in the United States before December 1, 1995 was made eligible to adjust their status, approximately 150,000 people. Our amendment helps only a limited class of Haitians, estimated at 30,000-40,000, who have sought the help of the United States in fleeing persecution. Let me emphasize that point again--this amendment is for those who have actively sought U.S. help, not those who came illegally and sought to evade detection. There are two different categories of Haitians involved. The first category are those paroled into the country after being identified as having a credible fear of persecution. Nearly all in this category, approximately 11,000 Haitians, were pre-screened at Guantanamo Bay and found to meet a credible fear of persecution test. These 11,000 Haitians represent approximately 25% of those screened at Guantanamo, the other 75% were returned to Haiti. The second category are those Haitians who have applied for asylum by December 31, 1995. In the case of those in the second category, they are people who have been caught in an asylum backlog not under their control and may have a difficult time now, due to the passage of time, demonstrating a credible fear of persecution. In the meantime, they have put down roots in this country and are making positive contributions to their communities. I am talking about a twenty-five year old woman, Nestilia Robergeau, who fled Haiti, where she had been beaten and raped and her brother was murdered. Even though she was screened into this country through Guantanamo in 1992, she is still waiting for an asylum interview. In the meantime, she has graduated from high school and hopes to attend college to become a nurse. She works most days from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. to support herself and her teenage brother. And then there is a little fourth grade girl in Miami, Florida, Louiciana Miclisse. Both of her parents were shot and killed in Haiti, and the only relative she has now is her Aunt Nadia, who came with her from Haiti. She wants to grow up to be a doctor. She has applied for asylum, but her case has still not been considered. Do we really want to send this child back to Haiti where she has no family? Is that what this country is all about? I believe we are more compassionate than that. It's also important to mention that conditions in Haiti are not safe for the return of these people. At an immigration subcommittee field hearing last December, the committee was informed that the Haitian government has not yet established the civil institutions necessary to protect these refugees from further retribution by those who perpetrated human rights crimes. In fact, it appears that these criminals continue to operate with impunity. As I mentioned at the outset, this amendment is consistent with our treatment of similarly-situated immigrant groups. As Grover Joseph Rees, former General Counsel of INS under President Bush, testified at the subcommittee field hearing last December, it has been the rule rather than the exception that when a human rights emergency has led to the admission of large numbers of parolees from a particular country, such refugees and others similarly situated have been subsequently granted permanent residency through Congressional action. Congress has granted permanent residence on this basis in the past to Hungarians, Poles, Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians, Laotians, Cubans, and, most recently, Nicaraguans. This action for the Haitians is entirely consistent with our past treatment of similarly-situated groups from other countries. This amendment is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it. The Haitians who are affected by this situation have been left in limbo far too long. I urge my colleagues to support the Graham/ Mack amendment.