Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the ``mark-to-market'' program that was enacted last year in the VA/HUD appropriations act was expected to be implemented by late October of this year. While I applaud the efforts of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in preparing the implementation of the law, I am still concerned about its progress and ability to meet the October deadline. I am concerned about the President's failure after 9 months to nominate a Director of the Office of Multifamily Housing Assisted Restructuring and that interim regulations have not yet been published. I, however, would like to focus on the fact that HUD has not begun the process for selecting participating administrative entities (PAE). Without them, the program will not work. In the original mark-to-market legislation that passed the Senate as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, State and local housing finance agencies (HFA) that had qualified under the mark-to-market demonstration and FHA risk-sharing programs would automatically qualify as PAEs. The Banking Committee felt strongly that HFAs not only were the best entities to administer mark-to-market, but it also had concerns about HUD's ability to select qualified entities in a timely and objective manner.

Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague for his assistance.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today with my colleague, Senator Graham. I introduce the Florida Coast Protection Act of 1998. It was a little over a year ago that we introduced similar legislation to protect the pristine environment off of Florida's coasts. That legislation would have banned leasing within 100 miles of the coast of Florida, and would have canceled six oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf closest to Florida's coast held by the Mobil Corporation. Fortunately, soon after we introduced our bill, Mobil decided to pull out of those leases. Nevertheless, the threat to Florida's coastline remains. Mr. President, Floridians have always been justifiably concerned about the prospect of oil and gas exploration in the waters off our state. We are well aware of the risk this activity poses to our environment and our economy because, in Florida. A healthy environment means a healthy economy. Millions of people come to our State each year to enjoy the climate, our beaches, and our fine quality of life. The tourism industry in Florida provides millions of jobs and generates revenues in the billion of dollars. It would take only one disaster to end Florida's good standing as America's vacationland. We cannot afford to let that happen. Throughout my tenure in the Senate I have opposed exploration and drilling off Florida's coasts. My goal--and the goal the entire Florida Congressional delegation--is to permanently remove this threat from our coasts. In recent years, we have stood together in opposition to drilling and have successfully extended the annual moratorium on all new leasing activities on Florida's continental shelf. Mr. President, while the opposition of Floridians to oil drilling is well-documented, the reality remains that leases have been let, potential drilling sites have been explored and it is likely that actual extraction of resources could take place within the next few years. For these reasons, I rise with Senator Graham to protect our state from the ravages of drilling. First, our legislation makes permanent the ban on any new leasing activity within 100 miles of our coast in order to prevent a repeat of the past mistake of leasing in the OCS off Florida. Second, it requires additional studies be conducted prior to the issuance of permits of oil and gas production on existing leases. Finally, it gives the state flexibility to make a determination regarding the consistency of oil and gas development and production plans with The Coastal Zone Management Act after an environmental impact statement detailing the direct and cumulative impacts of the project is completed by the Minerals Management Service. Mr. President, removing the threat of oil and gas exploration permanently from our shores will require responsible leadership from the Congress. This legislation, in my view, is absolutely necessary to protect our state's economic and environmental well-being. I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile effort. We look forward to working with Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to meet this goal.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with the pending amendment. I deeply regret the circumstances regarding India's decision to detonate nuclear devices. But the increased instability in South Asia has been caused by China's proliferation policies, a U.S. foreign policy which favors China over India, and the licensing of technologies by the United States which enhances China's military capabilities. So I wonder why we would consider strongly condemning the Indian government--the democratically elected Indian government--for taking legal actions in its perceived self interest. And I further question this amendment occurring on a day in which the Senate could not vote to express our concerns with the reprehensible actions taken by the communist party officials running the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, India has broken no international laws or agreements by choosing to test nuclear devices, and India is not a known proliferator of weapons or weapons technology. We know, however, that China is a proliferator. Of particular concern is Chinese proliferation of weapons and technologies to Pakistan. But today the Senate will vote to condemn India and fail to vote to condemn China. India and China went to war in 1962. To this day, China continues to occupy 15,000 square miles of Indian territory in Ladakh and it claims sovereignty over the entire 35,000 square miles of India's Northeastern most province. The pending amendment rightly points out that India has not joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But the amendment fails to recognize that the NPT seeks to ensure the current five nuclear powers alone are able to possess nuclear weapons. This means that China can maintain its arsenal, but India cannot. India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for similar reasons. Mr. President, there appears to be a serious contradiction represented in our foreign policy which makes no sense to me. It is for this reason that I cannot support this amendment and will vote against it. I yield the floor. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I commend Senator Torricelli for his comments on this bill and for his efforts, as well, throughout this entire process. I say to my friend, Senator Coverdell, again, that this would not have happened if it hadn't been for his commitment to this idea, his persistence, and his willingness to, in essence, say it will never end until we pass it. So I commend him for the effort he has made all throughout these months. This bill will enable working families to keep more of what they earn, and it includes a number of other important education provisions. My focus during this debate has been on providing every classroom in America with a competent, caring, and qualified teacher. In my opinion, teachers make all the difference in the learning process. America's classrooms are staffed with many dedicated, knowledgeable, and hard-working teachers. Nevertheless, in classrooms all over America, teachers are being assigned to teach classes for which they have no formal training. Consider these statistics: Twenty percent of 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. That is one out of five. Twenty-five percent of mathematics classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in mathematics or mathematics education. That is one out of four. Thirty- nine percent of life sciences or biology classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in biology or life science. Fifty-six percent of physical science classes were taught by teachers without at least a minor in physics, chemistry, geology, or earth sciences. More than 50 percent 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- percent chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who holds a license and a degree in the field that he or she teaches. The amendment I introduced, along with Senator D'Amato, provides incentives for States to test their teachers on the subject matter they teach and to pay their teachers based on merit and proven performance. In light of the statistics I mentioned before, it is clear that teacher testing is necessary and important. Our amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 63-35, and I am pleased that it is included in this conference report. The Congress should be proud of this bill and the efforts we have made to promote responsible education policy. I hope this bill will receive broad bipartisan support. Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his hard work and dedication on this bill. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will begin a period for the transaction of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco bill with a Gorton amendment pending regarding attorneys' fees. It is expected that a time agreement will be reached with respect to the Gorton amendment, with a vote occurring on, or in relation to, the amendment this afternoon. Following disposition of the Gorton amendment, it is hoped that further amendments will be offered and debated during today's session. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible throughout today's session as the Senate continues to make progress on the tobacco bill. As a final reminder to all Members, the official photo of the 105th Congress will be taken today at 2:15 p.m. in the Senate Chamber. All Senators are asked to be in the Chamber and seated at their desks immediately following the weekly party luncheons. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with the handling of United States foreign policy on the eve of President Clinton's second summit with the People's Republic of China. American foreign policy should promote freedom, democracy, respect for human dignity, and the rule of law. It is hard for me to imagine that the President would reward inappropriate actions by the Chinese Communist Party leaders while simultaneously sanctioning the democratic leaders in India. Over India's 50-year history, U.S. relations have been hot and cold. But we cannot deny the reality that today, India is the largest democracy in the world. India recently held the largest democratic elections in the history of the world. And democracy is more than just a word. We have a common bond with the Indian people based upon a commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. They are a people who have struggled for freedom from a colonial power in order to gain independence. We share that struggle in our histories. India has many friends in the United States, and many Americans proudly claim Indian heritage. But our relationship with India has been neglected, and unfortunately, we find ourselves in a difficult bind. Due to India's recent decision to detonate nuclear devices on May 11 and May 13, we have instituted sanctions. I deeply regret the circumstances regarding India's decision to detonate nuclear devices. But the increased instability has been caused by China's proliferation policies, a U.S. foreign policy which favors China over India, and the licensing of technologies by the United States which enhances China's military capabilities. Let me review some of the facts. India has broken no international laws or agreements by choosing to test nuclear devices. India is not a known proliferator of weapons or weapons technology. India's 50-year history demonstrates peaceful intent exercised within a democratic society. India has been a nuclear power since it conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974; this status did not change with last month's tests. Although not at war, India's borders are considered ``hot spots'' for several reasons. Since independence in 1947, India and Pakistan have been disputing borders. Also since independence, India has understood the importance of good relations with China for its own security. Relations were clouded by China's occupation in 1950 of Tibet, which had been independent until then and served as a stable buffer between the two countries. This occupation brought Chinese expansion to India's border. India sought renewed cooperative relations on the basis of a policy that recognized Tibet's genuine autonomy under Chinese sovereignty in order to maintain a buffer between India and China. Relations completely changed, however, following China's military build-up in Tibet beginning in 1956 and 1957. During this period, China began the systematic oppression of Tibetan religion and culture, forcing the mass migration of Tibetans. The Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans were given refuge in India in 1959. After forty years, the Tibetan oppression continues, the military occupation of Tibet continues, and nearly 200,000 Tibetans remain in India. Between 1957 and 1962, India's relations with China were marred by Beijing's huge territorial claims amounting to 50,000 square miles, and its illegal use of force to occupy 15,000 square miles of that claimed area. Indian attempts to reach a border settlement through negotiations with China failed in 1961, and its attempts to prevent further Chinese encroachment into Indian territory was met by a massive Chinese invasion in 1962. To this day, China continues to occupy 15,000 square miles of Indian territory in Ladakh and it claims sovereignty over the entire 35,000 square miles of India's Northeastern most province [Arunachal Pradesh]. This source of tension and deep concern has not been removed despite several rounds of Sino-Indian diplomatic negotiations to resolve the border dispute since 1981. China conducted its first nuclear test in October 1964, within 2 years of the outbreak of the Sino-Indian War. In 1966, China tested its first medium range ballistic missile, and tested again in 1970. India decided to develop its nuclear weapons program in 1970. It conducted its first tests, declaring its capability to the world, in 1974. India did not join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--known as the ``NPT''--in 1968 because the treaty sought to ensure an arms control system that would allow the five powers alone--China, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and the United States--to possess nuclear weapons. That meant that China, the internally oppressive and undemocratic occupying force on India's border, would be permitted to have nuclear weapons while India, fearful and insecure, would be denied any recourse to such weapons. India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because the treaty seeks to prevent India from conducting further tests without limiting China's ability to do the same. Like the NPT, India refuses to join this treaty as a nonnuclear power unless China and the other powers agree to disarm. Between 1974 and 1998, India experienced sanctions by the United States on nuclear energy, space, computer, and other technologies. Following India's first nuclear tests in 1974, it did not conduct further tests, until now. India has not been a proliferator of nuclear weapons and missiles but China, a nuclear power, has proliferated. Some estimates indicate 90 percent of China's weapons sales go to states which border India. Of particular concern is Chinese proliferation of such weapons and technologies to Pakistan. Between 1974 and 1998, India has tried to break through the difficulties with China and Pakistan. India had not conducted any further tests, even though China had. India had not illegally proliferated weapons--China had. But India has been denied the same nuclear and technical cooperation which we have accorded to the PRC. India's commercial electricity needs are among the largest in the world, similar to China's. We have recently signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with the PRC, but maintain restrictions on nuclear power agreements with India. India's testing in 1974 and in 1998, again, violated no agreements. North Korea expelled international inspectors in 1993, in direct violation of the NPT. We ``rewarded'' the brutal dictatorship in North Korea with a classic appeasement plan--free fuel oil and $4 billion worth of the top of the line nuclear reactors in exchange for their promises to do what they didn't do under an internationally binding agreement. China may be too preoccupied today to directly threaten India, but they need only employ Pakistan as a surrogate belligerent to jeopardize India's security. Mr. President, the United States is helping the largest single-party authoritarian government in the world suppress the development of the largest democracy in the world. I submit that China's behavior against students on Tiananmen Square, resistance to freedom and democratic reforms, abysmal human rights record, and dangerous and irresponsible proliferation activities deserve America's scorn more than India's legal actions taken in defense of its own national interests. There is something inherently wrong with sanctioning a democracy legally acting in its perceived national interests while rewarding a single party communist state which threatens regional security in violation of international law. India watched carefully as the United States has led the world in a policy of engagement with China. From the U.S.-China relationship, India has learned some important lessons. First, look at the rationale the U.S. gives for its policy toward China. We must ``engage'' with China because it is the most populous country, an enormous potential market, a major trading nation, a member of the permanent five at the United Nations Security Council, and China is a nuclear power with a modernizing military. With these qualifications China has been able to get top priority and attention from U.S. Government and business leaders. In spite of posing a potential threat to the United States and being among the world's worst human rights violators, China gets the perks of enormously favorable trade and investment flows and top level diplomatic treatment, including presidential visits, while India gets sanctioned. This makes no sense--it is strange--and it's just wrong. The United States largely overlooks India despite its 950 million people, its democratic government, and the largest middle class in the world. Demographers predict that India's population will surpass that of China sometime during the next century. Thus, the only attribute India lacks when compared with its sometimes-aggressive neighbor, in this administration's definition of importance, is acceptance into the ``nuclear club.'' The message sent by the Clinton foreign policy team has encouraged India to conclude the most effective way to ensure its interests are protected from an increasingly powerful Asian superpower, and garner greater diplomatic and commercial attention from the West, is to remind the world of its nuclear deterrent capability. What lessons are we to learn? First, the United States should be more cautious with our definition of ``engagement.'' By overlooking China's proliferation activities--not imposing sanctions when required by law-- we are rewarding the wrong behavior. Second, understanding that India considered its security environment to be precarious enough to risk global condemnation and economic sanctions, the U.S. should take a closer look to assess whether India's fears and actions were justified. And finally, we must base our foreign policies upon the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human dignity, and the rule of law. We must look to our friends first in this endeavor, and work together to ``engage'' those who would oppose freedom in the world. India, along with Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and other Asian democracies should form the foundation from which our engagement in Asia begins. Working with the democracies of the world, we should engage China and bring the 1.2 billion Chinese people into the community of free nations. A foreign policy devoid of principle has led us to the point where we are rewarding dictators and punishing democracies. The President's visit to China this month represents another opportunity to define the United States' role in the world. The President must clearly articulate which behavior deserves praise, and which does not. He must demonstrate strong leadership on behalf of the American people. We must all understand, the behavior which the United States rewards is likely to be the behavior we will see more of in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, thank you.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today Senator Grams and I introduce the Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1998. This bill would allow manufacturers of printed wiring boards and 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 a 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 depreciation 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 electronics assemblers can depreciate equipment needed to fabricate and assemble circuit boards. The Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1998 will provide modest tax relief to the electronics interconnection industry and the 250,000 Americans, residing in every state of 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, today Senator Grams and I introduce the Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1998. This bill would allow manufacturers of printed wiring boards and 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 a 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 depreciation 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 electronics assemblers can depreciate equipment needed to fabricate and assemble circuit boards. The Printed Circuit Investment Act of 1998 will provide modest tax relief to the electronics interconnection industry and the 250,000 Americans, residing in every state of 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, as the Congress continues to address the important work of reducing government spending, eliminating layers of bureaucratic waste, and increasing efficiency, we should focus on eliminating those regulations and programs which are no longer needed and are outdated. As Republicans, we must strive to enact legislation that embraces less government, less spending and more freedom. S. 621 is a bill that embodies these important principles. This bill would reduce the unnecessary federal requirements included under the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935. Originally enacted to correct the abusive practices of holding companies during the 1920's and 30's, PUCHA is now an outdated law that is simply no longer needed. It has served its purpose and outlived its usefulness. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which implemented the Act has urged its repeal for several years. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, along with many state public utility commissioners, also recognize the inefficiency of PUCHA's obsolete provisions and therefore support its repeal. It is widely recognized that the redundant and burdensome regulations of PUCHA have resulted in higher cost for consumers. These regulations not only restrict the ability of electric producers to compete in a free market economy, but also restrict these companies from responding to the seasonal nature of electric demand. Many States have begun to address this issue by moving forward to a fully competitive electric market that allows consumer choice. Due to the cumbersome regulatory structure imposed upon them under the PUCHA system, States will not be able to achieve the full benefits of competition. S. 621 seeks to correct this while retaining essential consumer protections. Further, this bill allows the utility industry the flexibility to invest, diversify, and respond to current consumer demand. By passing S. 621 we can reduce burdens on utilities and create savings which would then be passed on to ratepayers. Mr. President, the time to act on S. 621 is now. There is simply no reason why we should delay action on repeal when the passage of this bill clearly preserves the fundamental principles of free enterprise and capitalism on which our great country was founded. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to welcome home the 351st MP Company who recently returned from Bosnia on April 3, 1998. The President sent our service men and women to Bosnia in an effort to bring peace to the region. I think it is appropriate to recognize the important and extensive contributions of our Reserve Forces without whom this extended mission probably would not have been possible. The 351st, consisting of 182 personnel, primarily from the City of Ocala, FL, was mobilized on August 19, 1997 and ordered to Bosnia under the command of Captain Keith Holmes. Prior to their departure, the unit underwent extensive training at both Ft. Benning, GA and Ft. Polk, LA, before being sent to Bosnia-Herzogovina. In Bosnia, the unit was split between two base camps, Eagle Base and Bedrock, located in Tuzia valley. While in Bosnia, the 351st participated in operation Joint Guard. The operation's major focus was to provide a stable environment for implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP). The 351st conducted numerous peacekeeping missions, which included: area presence patrols, weapons storage site inspections, quick Reaction Force duties on Eagle Base, and protective services for numerous senior U.S. Army officers, culminating with the President of the United States during his visit to Bosnia. In leaving their families and their jobs, the men and women of the 351st have endured personal sacrifice and demonstrated their deep sense of duty to their country. It is only through the recognition and use of reservists as an integral part of our total force structure that the United States has been able to demonstrate its commitment to peace and security in Bosnia. And, through this commitment, the United States has made possible the promise of safety and hope of reconciliation to the people of this troubled region. In its role, the 351st has served as a shining example of the indispensable role of Reservists in our Armed Forces. Reservists who answered the call of duty when their country asked them to serve have my deepest respect and gratitude. Accordingly, it gives me great pleasure to welcome home the 351st MP Company and thank them for a job well done.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there are few industries I consider more vile than the cigarette manufacturers. I believe they lied to the American people and knowingly addicted millions to their harmful product. It is with this disgust and anger in mind that I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Gregg Amendment. Although at first blush it may seem the ``right'' thing to strike the liability cap if we want to punish the tobacco manufacturers, in effect we will have done exactly what they want us to do: Kill the bill. We should first ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation: Reduce teen smoking, fund worthy tobacco-related programs while holding harmless innocent parties such as farmers. Would the Gregg Amendment further any of those goals? No. The provision stricken by this amendment does not grant immunity to anyone, rather it sets a yearly cap on what they will pay and allows us to charge fees, put in place advertising restrictions and conduct strict oversight. In essence, it keeps the companies out of bankruptcy thereby allowing us to keep a close eye on them and force them to undo some of the damage they have done. The liability cap of $8 billion per year cuts off no one's rights or payments, other than for those who want to settle their claims. Taking it away would likely result in many aggrieved parties going unpaid because the companies would file for bankruptcy protection, effectively shutting out meritorious plaintiffs from recovery. For those of my colleagues worried about the tax burden imposed by tobacco legislation, I would think they would all vote against this amendment as well. If the Gregg Amendment is passed and the liability cap stricken, the fee would then become a pure tax and the overall tax burden on the American public would likely double. Here's why: The current bill would then not settle any state lawsuits, but rather simply impose a tax of at least $1.10. Because those state suites would continue, and likely be successful or settled, we should expect that the states will begin to impose their own taxes on tobacco. That means we see a $2-3.00 per pack increase in taxes--which is outrageous. In short, if you want to do nothing but tax and spend, vote for the Gregg Amendment. If you actually want to try and solve some of the problem of reducing teen smoking you should vote against it.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes to speak as if in morning business and then to proceed to my amendment.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, it was not my intention, frankly, to speak on the issue of Israel. But Senator Feinstein and I have a difference of opinion on this, and I feel compelled, frankly, to make a comment. I strongly believe the administration has made a major mistake in publicly tabling and publicly pressuring the Government of Israel in this particular set of circumstances. The administration knew at the time that the plan that was being proposed would be accepted by Arafat and rejected by Prime Minister Netanyahu. I, again, think it is fundamentally wrong for one democracy to try to impose on another democracy what it should be doing. The people of Israel have chosen its government. They have chosen this government based on what they perceive to be their No. 1 priority, which is security, and that government should not be pressured by the ally, the United States. It is fundamentally wrong. And I personally believe that to do that could end up with a forced agreement, which, in fact, would be a false peace. That would endanger the Middle East. Again, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to express those feelings.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, President Clinton's ultimatum to Israel regarding proposals to withdrawal from the West Bank to secure the peace process is wrong and should be abandoned. What business is it of the United States to give an ultimatum to a democratically elected people regarding their own security interest? We should not publicly pressure an ally to violate their own security assessment. This is not a matter for Washington to decide, but rather for the Israeli people to decide. The deadline imposed on Israel by the Administration removes any incentive for Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to negotiate. The United States should encourage direct negotiation, not dictate the agenda. We need to exercise patience to reach a lasting peace, not risk Israeli security. Mr. President, the Middle East peace process is taking place in a complex environment; caution--not irresponsible bravado--is required. There is no question that everyone involved wants peace in the Middle East. Yet, we must ask if our current actions are leading Israel and the Palestinian people toward security and freedom, or further from it. Putting pressure upon the people of Israel, forcing them to violate their own security needs, works against peace. The Middle East continues to be defined by suspicion, hatred, and a continuing arms race. Terrorism's presence can be felt everywhere-- in the markets and in the streets and cafes. And while much of the Arab world enters modernity, liberalizing economies and governments, radical Islamic extremism also grows. Anti-Semitism and the anti-Israeli refrain has not yet ceased to be heard through the souks and bazaars of the Middle East. This hatred is unfortunately a very real, very frightening, part of daily existence for the Israeli people. Over the past several months of bipartisan discussions and personal dialogue with the administration, I've concluded two things. First, America can continue to play a vital role in the peace process, but our role must be limited to mediator and facilitator. Second, in spite of this administration's good intentions, the United States is currently trying to lead the talks toward a false goal--the Israelis understand this and resist. The President must understand that peace through ultimatum may get him an agreement, but an agreement which may provide a risky and false peace. A lasting and secure peace represents the only worthy goal. And if this means that we wait and demonstrate patience and not arrogance, then we should. The U.S. will eagerly take a share of the credit for a successful agreement, but we must remember--we do not pay the price of failure. The price of failure will be paid by the Palestinian and Israeli people, who will continue to live in fear of another bus bombing in the city center, of their children being targeted in buses and cafes.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my intention now is to make a few closing remarks, and then I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and go to a vote.

Mr. MACK. I appreciate the kind comments that my colleagues have made in their disagreement over the amendment I offer today. Let me go to the heart of the matter as I see the argument that the Senators are making. What they are saying is that this oversight board, in essence, has no authority without the Secretary of the Treasury. I fundamentally disagree with that. The power comes from the law, not the presence of the Secretary. The authority is written into the legislation that is before the Senate today. Having the Secretary of the Treasury on that Commission does not add power. In fact, I say it reduces the power of the taxpayer, which is the intention behind, at least from my perspective, the oversight board. The reason we need an oversight board is because there have been decades of inadequate oversight by the people empowered to oversee the IRS--Commissioners, Secretaries, Presidents, and Congresses. The entire purpose of the oversight board is to provide to private citizens, to taxpayers, some power over the IRS. If the Secretary of the Treasury is on the board, his oversight power is not enhanced but the power of the private citizens on the board will be diluted. There is no guarantee that the staff of the board will be of any size at all. My fear would be that they might be detailees from the IRS and from the Treasury. It is not very realistic to assume that the private sector members of the oversight board can escape the dominance of the Treasury Secretary. There is one last argument I will respond to and then yield the floor. Should the Secretary be on the board so the board has the advantage of his knowledge and access to information? Nothing prevents the Treasury Secretary from submitting his views to the oversight board. It should be expected that the oversight board will consult with the Treasury Secretary. Input from within the Treasury Department is already guaranteed by the Commission's representation on the board. I think the amendment that I have offered and the perspective that I have argued, frankly, have great power. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment. I yield back the remaining time. I believe the yeas and nays have been called for.

Mr. MACK. I say to the Senator, I do not know if there are additional Senators who wish to speak in favor. I ask the Senator the same question, whether there are others who wish to speak.

Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair. Last week, thanks to the leadership of Finance Committee Chairman Roth, Congress resumed the first meaningful IRS oversight hearings we have conducted in decades. The testimony we heard reinforced the impression of a rogue agency that is literally out of control. As was the case when the oversight hearings began in September, some of what we heard was shocking, much of it was saddening, and all of it was angering. Witnesses testified to incidents of IRS abuse and of blatant misuse of IRS power that are simply unacceptable. I recall in particular the story of one taxpayer who could not be at the hearings in person but was represented by his former attorney. The reason the taxpayer could not attend was that he was literally hounded to death by the IRS. The 61-year-old taxpayer had been suffering from severe health problems. He had heart disease and was weakened by cancer. The IRS revenue officer assigned to his case was informed that the taxpayer could not physically withstand stressful situations but, with the support of his supervisor and the chief of collections, persisted in aggressive and intimidating tactics. I want to make this clear now about the IRS being well aware of the health conditions of the taxpayer. They had a letter, I believe, from the physician that was sent to them informing them of the condition of the taxpayer, and yet they persisted in aggressive and intimidating tactics. The IRS, disregarding this humanitarian appeal, sent the taxpayer a notice of intent to levy. By the way, let me back up for a moment as well. Notice I talked about that taxpayer going to his attorney. The request on the part of the attorney was that further contacts in this case be with the attorney, not the taxpayer, again because of the health condition. They totally ignored that request. And so 2 days after this levy, the man died from a heart attack. This story highlights, perhaps better than any other we heard, the fundamental and disgraceful problems at the IRS, an agency which never seems to consider the interests and perspective of the taxpayer. This attitude is entirely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The IRS Criminal Investigations Division has apparently learned from the FBI and the DEA criminal investigative techniques that are appropriate for dealing with violent and dangerous criminals and now uses these in routine criminal tax investigations of taxpayers who are neither dangerous nor violent. Taxpayers have had their businesses raided by armed agents, their lives turned upside down, and their reputations ruined. In listening to hours of compelling testimony, members of the Finance Committee could not help but wonder how in the world could such things be happening. Why would the IRS send 10 special agents to a woman's home at 7:30 in the morning to serve a search warrant and spend 8 hours in her home not to search for drugs or illegal contraband but, instead, so that a furniture appraiser could value items from her grandmother's estate? Who could have approved such a blatantly intrusive act? Why would the IRS send 64 agents to raid a man's family business with 35 employees at the home office? The taxpayer was not a violent or dangerous criminal. What purpose could be served by the use of 64 agents in this raid other than to intimidate and oppress the taxpayer? The villains of the horror stories that were presented to the Finance Committee last week were not just frontline, low-level employees of the IRS. None of these abuses could have taken place without either the approval of management or of failure in supervision. Last week's hearings exposed a corrupt culture permeating IRS management which will require a major housecleaning at the Service. The current oversight of the Service is just not working. The Treasury inspector general has the power to investigate IRS operations, but we learned last week that the inspector general is being ignored by the IRS. The inspector general investigated and substantiated allegations of travel fraud, abuse of subordinates, sexual harassment, fraudulent performance appraisals, and others to cover up illegal actions, all against IRS executives. Yet in each and every one of these cases the report from the inspector general was sent to the Deputy Commissioner's desk and no disciplinary action was taken. In other cases, the IRS has hindered oversight by keeping information from the inspector general. Now, this particular problem of inspector general oversight is addressed in the IRS reform bill that we have before us through the creation of a new inspector general for tax administration. But the problem underscores the corrupt culture at the IRS, a culture in which the decent, honest IRS employees who report abuses of their coworkers receive not thanks but retaliation. At the IRS, an individual who sexually harasses his subordinates can end up being the National Director of Equal Employment Opportunity. At the IRS, midlevel managers can decide to close the audits of major corporations and determine that no extra taxes are owed even when the corporation concedes that it owes more taxes. At the IRS, a renegade special agent with a drinking and substance abuse problem can fabricate allegations of political corruption and be protected rather than punished by his supervisors. This culture must change, and it is not happening. We heard last week that some IRS managers have been bragging that they have no regard for the Finance Committee's oversight hearings and that they intend to go back to business as usual once the spotlight is off. Even after we exposed the illegal use of enforcement statistics to evaluate IRS employees and offices, it seems that the southern region is still ranking their district offices based on property seizures. Many IRS bureaucrats appear to have concluded that we are not serious about oversight and that we are not serious about reform. We in the Congress must prove them wrong and send a strong message to the IRS and to the taxpayer that business as usual will not be tolerated. Since our hearings last September exposed numerous instances of taxpayer abuse, it seems that not one person has been fired at the IRS. It is my hope that the provisions in the IRS reform bill that require the termination of employees who commit certain acts such as taxpayer abuse will help correct this problem. Commissioner Rossotti has made a number of positive moves since taking office. He has ordered an independent review of the IRS Inspection Service, and now he has enlisted Judge William Webster for a much needed review of the Criminal Investigations Division. In order to change the corrupt culture at the IRS, it is necessary that outside people with a perspective different from that of the IRS bureaucracy be given a prominent role. It is for this reason that I have offered this amendment. My amendment, cosponsored by Senator Faircloth and Senator Murkowski, would move us closer to Chairman Roth's vision of a private sector oversight board by removing the Secretary of the Treasury from this board. The purpose of the oversight board is to reform the IRS from the outside. The board will be composed of people from the private sector, people with management and information systems expertise, people who still have the interest of the taxpayer in mind. To change the culture of the IRS, we need to replace the law enforcement mentality with a customer service mentality. The independent oversight board will play a vital role in changing this culture. There is no place on such a board for a Government official, such as the Secretary of the Treasury. The board must be the voice of the taxpayer, not the voice of the status quo. For this new board to have any credibility with the public, it must not be under the influence of the Cabinet Member who already has responsibility for the agency. We must prove that we are serious about reform of the IRS. Making the oversight board a private sector check on the IRS is essential for reform. Otherwise, it is just Washington business as usual with another Washington-controlled commission. That is not what we need. We need an oversight board of the taxpayers, by the taxpayers, and for the taxpayers. Mr. President, I want to make it clear, because I realize that in these kinds of situations the impression could be drawn that I am focusing my concerns personally at the Secretary of the IRS. That is not the point at all. The Secretary of the Treasury is, frankly, reflecting the views of the bureaucracy. I find it troubling that we would have changed the legislation from the markup document that we began with, which Senator Roth proposed, which did not include members other than private sector individuals. Again, I want to stress this point. This is not directed personally at the Secretary of the Treasury, but it is a response in essence to an attempt by the bureaucracy to protect itself. Here is what the Secretary has said in the past with respect to this issue. In the Cincinnati Inquirer, on September 17, 1997, Secretary Rubin said: The fact that the agency was being run by private sector individuals would almost surely have what lawyers call a chilling effect on IRS employees and influence audit policy, enforcement policy, and the like. You bet it would. I think that is exactly the reason we had called for a board in which there were only private sector representatives on that oversight board. The ultimate concern that I have here is that if we are going to make a change, it should not be business as usual. It should not be a commission dominated by Washington insiders. Why do I say it would be dominated when this is a board that would be, under its present organization, nine members, six from the private sector, three not? The six private sector members, as I recall, are part-time members of this commission, this oversight board. When you add the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of the IRS, and a representative of the employees at IRS, what you have done is totally changed the makeup in this sense. There are huge bureaucracies that the Secretary of the Treasury and the other members from Government can call on who will dominate, in my opinion, the six individuals who are serving from the private sector on a part-time basis with very limited staffs. I want to conclude my comments by saying to those Members of the Senate who participated in hearings, not just in the Senate but also in the process outside the committee, in no way do I try to lessen the significance of the work that you have done. But this is not an issue of what we hear at hearings. This is an issue of how Washington works and how the bureaucracy will do whatever is necessary in order to protect itself. And to put the Secretary of the Treasury and a representative of the employees on this board is just business as usual, Washington protecting itself. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MACK. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am proud to support my friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Graham, as we introduce legislation to commemorate the retirement and life's work of Mr. Malcom Randall. Mr. Randall has served his country for 59 years, 55 of which were spent with the Department of Veterans Affairs. A native of East St. Louis, Illinois, Mr. Randall graduated from St. Louis University with a master's degree in hospital administration. He was among a handful of medical leaders who began to transform the health care system for veterans at the end of World War II. Mr. Randall is the founding Director of the VA Medical Center in Gainesville, and he has served in that post for 32 years. During that time, he has also helped establish VA hospitals and outpatient clinics in other Florida cities. The VA Medical Center in Gainesville now serves 10,000 inpatients and handles 250,000 outpatient visits per year. Mr. Randall is America's longest serving administrator of veterans' health care services. He has won numerous awards for his exceptional service, including recognition for ``most outstanding performance'' on two occasions. He is retiring today, and while I am pleased that he will be able to take some time off to enjoy his years, I am saddened that the Department and the Center will be losing one of its greatest champions, and one of its most dedicated public servants. In further recognition of Mr. Randall's dedication to serving the needs of America's veterans, Bob Graham and I are proposing legislation to rename the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida as the ``Malcom Randall Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''. Our legislation is identical to legislation offered by Representative Karen Thurman in the House of Representatives, which is supported by most of the Florida Congressional delegation. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to recognize and honor the work and service of Malcom Randall, and I wish Mr. Randall well in his future pursuits.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am proud to support my friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Graham, as we introduce legislation to commemorate the retirement and life's work of Mr. Malcom Randall. Mr. Randall has served his country for 59 years, 55 of which were spent with the Department of Veterans Affairs. A native of East St. Louis, Illinois, Mr. Randall graduated from St. Louis University with a master's degree in hospital administration. He was among a handful of medical leaders who began to transform the health care system for veterans at the end of World War II. Mr. Randall is the founding Director of the VA Medical Center in Gainesville, and he has served in that post for 32 years. During that time, he has also helped establish VA hospitals and outpatient clinics in other Florida cities. The VA Medical Center in Gainesville now serves 10,000 inpatients and handles 250,000 outpatient visits per year. Mr. Randall is America's longest serving administrator of veterans' health care services. He has won numerous awards for his exceptional service, including recognition for ``most outstanding performance'' on two occasions. He is retiring today, and while I am pleased that he will be able to take some time off to enjoy his years, I am saddened that the Department and the Center will be losing one of its greatest champions, and one of its most dedicated public servants. In further recognition of Mr. Randall's dedication to serving the needs of America's veterans, Bob Graham and I are proposing legislation to rename the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida as the ``Malcom Randall Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''. Our legislation is identical to legislation offered by Representative Karen Thurman in the House of Representatives, which is supported by most of the Florida Congressional delegation. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to recognize and honor the work and service of Malcom Randall, and I wish Mr. Randall well in his future pursuits.