Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. We might debate this issue for an hour or two----

Mr. MACK. It was indicated a little earlier that there would be maybe 25 minutes. I think our definition of ``moment'' would fit within that range.

Mr. MACK. I just want to address myself to comments that were made by Senator Levin a little earlier with respect to, frankly, those of us who are considered donor States. We are still looking for more information. I understand from your point of view we have all the information that there is to have, and we ought to have sufficient data to make decisions about where we are on this amendment. I would say to the distinguished Senator that last evening several of us met with our staffs, going over, asking questions about what the impact of the amendment would be to our individual States. There was no clarity last night. We called and asked for a meeting this morning with individuals from the highway department, to come down and go over the data with us. They did so this morning. We asked for additional information. They are working on getting that information back to us. We hope sometime this afternoon that information would be available to us. We will then be in a better position to evaluate just exactly where we are. I must say, maybe it is because I am dealing from a position of real extreme frustration, representing a State that we believe under the old proposal had about 77 cents back for what we had contributed in the past, in the last year. I remember the debates and the discussions that we had 5 years ago, kind of saying, ``This is never going to happen to us again,'' that is being a donor State to the extent that we have been. So we are concerned and we do not feel that we have enough data to make a decision. We think it is unfair to say, let's just go ahead and move this amendment at this time. We do not have, and have not had, the time that you all have had over these last several months to be working on this bill. We have this opportunity now to try to evaluate what the amendment does. We are making a reasonable request. We are not trying to delay the bill. So, I ask the amendment be set aside until we have an opportunity to get this information and we can then discuss how we proceed.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling for the United States to introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights criticizing the People's Republic of China (PRC) for its atrocious human rights record in China and Tibet. This commission will meet on March 16, so I am here today with a sense of urgency. Mr. President, President Clinton reversed his position in 1993 and chose to de-link trade and human rights in 1993. This decision sacrificed important leverage in our relationship with the PRC to address America's human rights concerns. At the time of the President's decision, however, he promised the American people that he would strengthen his efforts to obtain an international condemnation of Beijing's violation of international human rights standards in China and Tibet. Specifically, he pledged that the United States would step up its efforts in cooperation with other states in insisting that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights pass a resolution dealing with the serious human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, this Human Rights Commission meets in Geneva on March 16, and to date, the President has not demonstrated his commitment to keep his pledge to the American people. It appears that no other nation on the Commission will initiate this resolution without U.S. support and leadership. It is time for the United States to provide that leadership--the leadership which the people of China depend upon. We must take action to introduce the China resolution at the Human Rights Commission and build international support for its passage. The U.N. Human Rights Commission is the only international body which oversees the human rights conditions of all states. Even though the resolution may not pass, simply the debate of human rights in China and Tibet at the U.N. Commission makes a difference. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet Wei Jingsheng in February. Mr. Wei is a Chinese dissident who has spent most of his life in Chinese prisons for his pro-democratic political writings. He was recently exiled from his country, and is now living in the United States. Unfortunately, while he considers this exile cruel, some want to give the government in Beijing credit for releasing Mr. Wei; they call this an example of ``progress.'' Mr. President, Mr. Wei articulates clearly and convincingly our call to action. His words are appropriate today, and every day we come to work here in the Senate of the United States. In an article by Patrick Tyler in the New York Times on November 22, 1997, Mr. Wei states, ``Democracy and freedom are among the loftiest ideals of humanity, and they are the most sacred rights of mankind. Those who already enjoy democracy, liberty and human rights, in particular, should not allow their own personal happiness to numb them into forgetting the many others who are still struggling against tyranny, slavery and poverty, and all of those who are suffering from unimaginable forms of oppression, exploitation and massacres.'' Mr. President, the United States must not take our freedom for granted. We must take action. We must not shy away from leadership in the world when our leadership is so badly needed. The United States must sponsor and lead the international effort to condemn the human rights situation in China and Tibet. I hope that my colleagues will join me in passing this resolution calling upon the President to keep his promise to the American people, and insist that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights pass a resolution dealing with the serious human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for yielding this time. I have prepared remarks that I have gone over with my staff that cover things like it is obvious that there is no medical or ethical justification for human cloning. We all understand that. We also know there have been no hearings. We know as well that we have information from 27 Nobel laureates who say we should not pass this legislation. We have letters from 71 patient groups and scientific organizations that say we should not do this. But let me say to my colleagues that I stand here this morning to make a special appeal. My father died of cancer. My mother died of cancer. My brother died of cancer. I was diagnosed with cancer. My wife was diagnosed with cancer. Our daughter was diagnosed with cancer. I say to my colleagues, I appeal to you, don't get drawn into this debate that we should pass this legislation because we want to stand up and make a statement that we are against cloning. We are all against human cloning. We are all against human cloning. What I am asking you to do is to vote no on cloture so we will have an opportunity to hear from those patient groups that want to represent people like myself, represent families that have been affected like my family has been affected. Let us hear from the scientific community that tells us whether this is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. I don't make a suggestion here that this is an easy decision to be made. It is a very difficult one. But that's all the more reason that you should vote against cloture and allow the process to take place--to have input, to have discussion, to have understanding. Then we then will be in a position to try to make a decision about what is the right thing to do. We just say let the process work. Let there be input. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to support moving the process forward. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for yielding.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to begin my comments by making it clear, like I suspect everyone in the U.S. Senate, that I am against human cloning. I have not really found too many people who have come forward with a statement saying that they are for human cloning. I am opposed to human cloning. So, let me make that clear at the beginning of the discussion. But, there is much more to this debate than as to whether one is for or against human cloning, and I think it is important that we get beyond that. I agree with those who have indicated earlier in the day that, frankly, we need to delay this debate, we need to delay this legislation. You might say, ``Well, why?'' Certainly the individuals who engaged in producing the legislation are thoughtful, serious people. I do not question that, nor do I question their intentions. But what they have proposed I think has tremendous risks. I will read from just a couple of letters that I have received from Nobel laureates. One of the letters indicates--and this is from Dr. Paul Berg, Stanford professor, Nobel laureate, chemistry, 1980. In his letter he says: The bill sponsored by Senators Bond, Frist, Gregg and others, if passed, would be the first to ban a specific line of research. A specific line of research. Not the end result, but the specific line of research would not be permitted. And he goes on to say: I believe this is a serious mistake, one that we could regret because of its unintended implications for otherwise valuable biomedical research. He goes on in the letter to say: At the same time, any legislation should not impede or interfere with existing or potential critical research fundamental to the prevention or cure of human disease. In another letter, from J.M. Bishop, Nobel laureate, university professor, University of California, San Francisco: The fundamental flaw in this legislation is the prohibition of a technology irrespective of its application. Such prohibition forecloses on any benefit from the technology, even if that benefit were in no way objectionable. Many well- intentioned people fail to understand that somatic cell nuclear transfer is not limited to cloning an organism. There are many examples of possible future applications of this technology to produce healthy tissue for therapeutic purposes, such as skin grafts for burn patients, or even to create insulin-producing cells for diabetics. There may also be applications for cancer patients who need a bone marrow transplant for whom a match cannot be found. Mr. President, I suggest that if time had permitted and if there had been greater warning that this legislation was going to come to the floor, I could virtually fill up the Congressional Record with those individuals who have serious concerns about what this legislation would do. And the same group of people would make the statement they are opposed to human cloning. I must admit that I have more than just a casual interest in this legislation. I have been deeply involved in trying to understand basic research as it relates most specifically to finding cures and better treatments for cancer. I am terrified at the thought that this legislation could move forward without the opportunity for there to be in-depth scientific debate before committees of the Congress of the United States about what this legislation would do. I just say to people that, if you go back into the early 1970s, 1971, I believe, regarding the issue of recombinant DNA, there were horror stories that were told about recombinant DNA research. There were all kinds of fears that were created. And there were places in the country where bans were actually put into place. Well, fortunately, the Congress never passed a ban like they are talking about here, because if they had, just to use one disease-- cystic fibrosis--think about what it would be like if you were the parent of a child with cystic fibrosis that had been denied a treatment that was developed as a result of going forward with recombinant DNA. What was developed enhanced the ability of the lung to function as a result of the discovery. Back in 1971, no one had even an idea where that research might have taken us. But in retrospect we can see that the foundation has been built for the future research that may in fact find better treatments, whether that is cancer, whether that is diabetes, whether that is Parkinson's disease, whether that is AIDS, whether that is sickle-cell anemia. And I could go on and on and on. So, Mr. President, all I am saying here today, and to my colleagues, is that if there is not a change in this legislation, then I am going to have to oppose the legislation. I understand that the majority leader will be coming to the floor shortly to file a cloture motion. I would have to vote against cloture if this legislation is not changed. I frankly believe that the most significant thing we could do would be to delay so that in fact we could hear from both sides on this issue. Again, the debate really isn't whether there should be human cloning. I think most people in this country clearly have said we should not do that, that it should be banned. But what we are debating is the potential outcome of the language that is put into legislative form that would limit the scientists of our country, limit them in their ability again to find cures, possibly, and certainly better treatments for the diseases that face our families, our children and our grandchildren. So, Mr. President, I sincerely hope that either we find some way to correct the legislation before us or that we delay this so that not only the scientific community can have an opportunity for input but also for patient groups. I think they ought to have an opportunity to come before the Congress at our hearings and let them raise their concerns about what might be done to maybe one area of hope that they have about better treatment or a cure.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I wonder if I might----

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to introduce with my esteemed colleague and friend, Senator Graham, the Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1998. This legislation will provide the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida with the judgeships which have been recommended for them by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Middle District would receive three new permanent judgeships and one temporary judgeship (the highest number of new judgeships recommended for any district in the country), while the Southern District would receive two new permanent judgeships. I would not be introducing this bill if I did not believe there is a real need for increased judicial resources in Florida. The pressures upon our court system, particularly in the Middle District, are some of the most acute in the entire country. The Middle District currently contains 55% of Florida's population, projected to grow to two-thirds of the population by the year 2005; and yet this District has only one- third of Florida's judges. This District also contains the federal correctional center at Coleman. When construction of this facility is completed in FY 1999, it will be the largest prison complex in the country. The increased prisoner petitions which come with this will stretch judicial resources even further. To add to the problem, a portion of the Middle District has been designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. While I am pleased that Florida will be receiving additional assistance in the war against drugs, we must also recognize and anticipate the increased demands that this will put upon this district as more criminals are apprehended and prosecuted. Both districts contain major tourist attractions in frequently visited cities, including Disney World, Universal Studios, and Busch Gardens in Tampa and Orlando and the international playground of South Beach in Miami. This heavy flow of both tourism and winter residents serve to make the needs of these two judicial districts unique in our nation. The statistics kept by the Administrative Office of the US Courts demonstrate the compelling need for new judges in these districts. The numbers for the latest twelve month period show that the Middle District ranks second in the nation in average cases (adjusted for complexity) filed per judge, with a crushing 855. The Southern District averages 605 per judge. To put this in perspective, the national average for this time period was 519. Clearly, both of these districts are in need of relief. I urge the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to consider and pass this legislation expeditiously. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Chairman Hatch for his swift consideration of all of the judicial nominees from Florida last year. The Southern and Middle Districts of Florida received three excellent new district judges, Donald Middlebrooks of West Palm Beach, Alan Gold of Miami, and Richard Lazzara of Tampa. In addition, Judge Stanley Marcus was nominated to the federal appeals court and confirmed by the full Senate in only six weeks. I know I speak for both Senator Graham and myself in saying that we are grateful for Chairman Hatch's responsiveness to the needs of these districts. It will not be 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. This legislation is integral to providing that court system.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to introduce with my esteemed colleague and friend, Senator Graham, the Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1998. This legislation will provide the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida with the judgeships which have been recommended for them by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Middle District would receive three new permanent judgeships and one temporary judgeship (the highest number of new judgeships recommended for any district in the country), while the Southern District would receive two new permanent judgeships. I would not be introducing this bill if I did not believe there is a real need for increased judicial resources in Florida. The pressures upon our court system, particularly in the Middle District, are some of the most acute in the entire country. The Middle District currently contains 55% of Florida's population, projected to grow to two-thirds of the population by the year 2005; and yet this District has only one- third of Florida's judges. This District also contains the federal correctional center at Coleman. When construction of this facility is completed in FY 1999, it will be the largest prison complex in the country. The increased prisoner petitions which come with this will stretch judicial resources even further. To add to the problem, a portion of the Middle District has been designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. While I am pleased that Florida will be receiving additional assistance in the war against drugs, we must also recognize and anticipate the increased demands that this will put upon this district as more criminals are apprehended and prosecuted. Both districts contain major tourist attractions in frequently visited cities, including Disney World, Universal Studios, and Busch Gardens in Tampa and Orlando and the international playground of South Beach in Miami. This heavy flow of both tourism and winter residents serve to make the needs of these two judicial districts unique in our nation. The statistics kept by the Administrative Office of the US Courts demonstrate the compelling need for new judges in these districts. The numbers for the latest twelve month period show that the Middle District ranks second in the nation in average cases (adjusted for complexity) filed per judge, with a crushing 855. The Southern District averages 605 per judge. To put this in perspective, the national average for this time period was 519. Clearly, both of these districts are in need of relief. I urge the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to consider and pass this legislation expeditiously. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Chairman Hatch for his swift consideration of all of the judicial nominees from Florida last year. The Southern and Middle Districts of Florida received three excellent new district judges, Donald Middlebrooks of West Palm Beach, Alan Gold of Miami, and Richard Lazzara of Tampa. In addition, Judge Stanley Marcus was nominated to the federal appeals court and confirmed by the full Senate in only six weeks. I know I speak for both Senator Graham and myself in saying that we are grateful for Chairman Hatch's responsiveness to the needs of these districts. It will not be 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. This legislation is integral to providing that court system.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Georgia for this opportunity. I want to again commend the Senator for the leadership he provided last year in focusing us on this issue, leading the debate and the effort to try to pass the A-plus education savings account with great leadership. We appreciate what the Senator is doing. I want to kind of set the stage as to why I think the issue of education is so important. When I go home and speak to the people, they will tell you that the No. 1 issue facing the Nation, facing their State, facing their community, is education. I think they recognize that if their children are going to be successful with their lives, they have to have an education that is second to none. But let me put it in a broader perspective in that I believe that the 21st century is going to be the century of knowledge. We have all heard about, for the last 10 or 15 years, folks like Alvin Toffler talking about the information/communications age. Some of us find ourselves totally surprised that we are engaged in playing around on the computer, the Internet, things I couldn't have dreamed of a couple years ago. We know there is an explosion of knowledge and information out there. We also know that if our children are going to be successful and be able to compete in the 21st century, they are going to have to have an education second to none. To just build on that, there was an educator in the State of Florida--President Bush put him on his commission-- Mitch Madique, who is the president at one of our State universities. He traveled to South America and had discussions with the various leaders of education in those countries. They were saying to him, ``We are really looking forward to the 21st century because competition in the 21st century is no longer going to be based on military capability, military strength or the amount of your natural resources. Instead, competition is going to be based on knowledge. If that's the case, we're all starting off on the same foot. And we believe we have just as much of an opportunity to develop a first-class education system as you do. So we look forward to competition in the 21st century.'' To me, this means that if those three little grandsons of mine, who are 13, 11 and 4, if they are going to have an opportunity to make it, and if they are going to have an opportunity to have the same kind of experiences and opportunities that we had, then they do have to have an education that is second to none. The proposals that the Senator from Georgia has already laid out make clear that there is not going to be a solution described and defined at the Federal level and passed on to the local communities and States. Conversely, we believe that the answers are going to come from the grassroots level. So I would like to just share for a moment an experience that I had in California a few years ago. I went to a school in the area where the riots took place. The name of this school was the Marcus Garvey School. We have had some experience with the Marcus Garvey School here in Washington. The experience we had in California was totally different than here locally, so don't be confused. As I went to the school and I drove down the street, I would suggest that probably most of you would think, ``I'm not sending my child to that school.'' There were just absolutely no amenities. There was not a blade of grass anywhere. There was not a single basketball hoop or any playgrounds that I could see. There was just a building that had been converted, I am not sure what from, into a series of classrooms. We went in and we met with the owner, the administrator, the principal--all one person. His name was Anyim Palmer. His office was probably 10 by 12, stacked full of papers. He had no secretary. When the phone rang, he answered it. The equipment or the desks and chairs appeared to be 30-40 years old. The point I am making is there was not a lot of money invested in amenities in this school. He suggested that maybe we go down and work our way through the different classes that were being taught. We started out in the day care area. We saw about eight or nine children age 2--not second grade, but age 2. When my wife and I went down to the room, the teacher said to the children, ``Show the Senator and Mrs. Mack how you can say your ABCs''--again, they were 2 years old. They said their ABCs. Just as cute as they could be, they ran through the alphabet. When they finished with that, the teacher said, ``Now say it in Spanish.'' Then they said it in Spanish. Then she said, ``Do it in Swahili.'' Then they said it in Swahili. Here are 2-year-old children who have already mastered the alphabet in three different languages. We went from there over to where the 3-year-old children--again, I emphasize 3-year-old children--were working on math. These little children were walking up to the blackboard working through math problems. So the teacher said to me, ``Give them a problem to work on.'' I suspect everybody here would have reacted the same way I did. I said, ``How about 5 plus 3?'' She said, ``No. I mean, give them a difficult problem to do.'' So I said, ``Well, how about 153 plus 385.'' And the little 3-year-old stood there and put a couple dots on the board, wrote down one number; put a couple more dots on the board, and another number went down; a few more dots, another number went down. It was the right answer--3 years old. We went over where the 4-year-olds were being taught reading, and they were reading at the second and third grade levels--at the age of 4. I went to where the 5-year-old children were--and mind you, we have not gotten to the first grade yet. The teacher asked one of the little boys to stand up and recite for me, in the proper chronological order, all the Presidents of the United States. This little boy stood up and looked me right square in the eye, and he listed every President of the United States in proper chronological order. You might be asking yourself, how did I know that? Frankly, they handed me a cheat sheet, and I was working my way down it as he was going through it. My point is, here is a school that most people, again, would look at and say, ``I don't want my child to go there.'' No amenities. It is bare bones. You may say, ``Well, what makes this thing work?'', which is exactly what I asked every teacher in every room that we went into. How is this happening? Anyim Palmer told me that the answer was the teacher. It is the teacher. Every time they asked the question, the answer was the same--it is the teacher. Interesting things came out of it. I don't believe any of the teachers were certified. I think only two of them had college educations. What happened is Anyim Palmer, who was the owner, administrator, the principal, was a former public schoolteacher who became so frustrated with the public school system that he said, ``I'm going to start my own school. I'm going to teach people how to teach.'' Again, I would encourage anyone who has an opportunity to make a visit to that school or something like it to do so. But the point is, if we rely on the present system, the present system will produce exactly what it has produced in the past, unless there is something that forces people to change. We believe the program that we have put together will in fact assist local communities and States to develop alternatives to the present public school system. I visited a charter school in Miami just a few days ago and spoke with a teacher there, who up until a few years ago was an engineer. I said, ``What happened? Why are you teaching?'' He said two things. One is, he said, ``I lost my job. And I didn't want to put my family through that kind of an experience again. I felt there was some security in teaching.'' And then he said, ``You know what? I have found my calling.'' He is teaching second grade children. He said, ``This is exactly where I should be.'' But in this charter school, this individual had flexibility. This individual could approach the opportunity of teaching our children in a totally different way than in the past. So, again, I think if we encourage innovative thinking, we are going to find there are some remarkable ways to improve education in our country. As you know, one of the major points in our proposal is to reward teachers who do a good job. We ought to reward excellence. We ought to say to those teachers, ``You have done a great job and we are going to reward you for it.'' That is why we are talking about the importance of merit pay. But if we are going to have merit pay, we also need to recognize those teachers who are not doing a good job. We need a way to determine that, other than whether a principal likes an individual or does not like an individual, or a school board does not like an individual. We ought to say there ought to be competence testing. Part of this plan, known as BOOKS, calls for competency testing and for merit pay. Before I conclude, I would like to point out that in the State of Florida, 70 percent of the community college freshmen require remedial education. We have to change that. The cost to the State of Florida is $50 billion a year to handle this problem. Let's improve our K-12 education system. With that, I yield the floor and again thank the Senator from Georgia for tackling this initiative. I look forward to working with you on this important issue. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK. I can name my first-grade teacher.

Mr. MACK. I could suspect you could draw the conclusion they were somewhat different than, say, what most people think of as the traditional family in America. But I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions on that because I think there are some things about what was going on in this school that also sends a message to moms and dads. I think that one of the reasons for success was because mom and dad were involved. They made the determination. I mean, this was a private school, so they have to pay to go to that private school--some of them at great sacrifice. Some of them, frankly, from outside the community. But the point there is, if you go back to the charter school, for example, one of the things that most charter schools require, as you know, is that they want parent involvement. In fact, when I was at the school in Liberty City, in Miami, mom and dad parents came into the classroom, as I was talking with the teacher, to discuss with him the problems of their student. What was the problem? Or what should they be doing more at home to help? Again, I think one of the messages that we do get is that in the charter schools--I guess there are others who are much more knowledgeable at these things than I am, but because it is a very focused school, it understands the importance of mom and dad being engaged. The teacher understands the importance of moms and dads being engaged, and, clearly, the parents understand if they are going to be able to keep their children in this charter school, they have to be part of it. Again, I would make the case, whether it be a mother and a dad or single mom or single father, that if you can engage them in the education process, regardless of that background, in probably 9 out of 10 cases--I am just saying this from my feeling; I do not have the statistics--but 9 out of 10 times, if you, the parent, one or both, are engaged in your children's education, you are going to improve the ability of your child to learn. And, again, I think you are going to find that you are going to create that environment, something different than we are doing today. There is just so much we can learn from this experience. Again, the answer that kept coming back, ``It is the teacher. It is the teacher. It is the teacher.'' I think people ought to recognize that what Republicans are saying is we value teachers. They are the ones who really make a difference. Again, if my grandsons are going to succeed, they need to be exposed to good teachers. We have to help create an environment in which people, (a) want to come into the teaching profession and, (b) once they are there, want to remain and experience the excitement of seeing young children learn. Teachers help children realize how important knowledge is to them and their future. Again, teachers are the ones who really make a difference.

Mr. MACK. No. As I indicated, it was in the riot area in Los Angeles.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis of Title II of the D.C. appropriations portion of the omnibus appropriations bill be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Harkin, DeWine, Santorum, Collins, Snowe, D'Amato, Smith of Oregon, Boxer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Graham, Dodd, Durbin, and Wellstone in introducing legislation that begins to realize the paramount goal of doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health [NIH] over the next 5 years. The bill ensures that any tobacco settlements or judgments are not tax deductible. As currently crafted, the global settlement specifically allows the tobacco companies to deduct the entire amount of their payments. That is a possible $128 billion break on their tax bill. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to allow them such a free ride at taxpayers' expense. More importantly, any settlement should provide funds for biomedical research, including funding to find better treatment and cures for the diseases caused by tobacco. Although the Tax Code often allows settlement amounts to be deductible, the current law provides that fines or penalties paid to a Government entity are not. The unprecedented situation we face with the tobacco industry demands that the Congress define these payments as more akin to such a fine or penalty. If a businessman cannot deduct a speeding ticket he received on his way to a meeting, tobacco shouldn't be able to deduct its payment for guaranteed immunity and certainty of liability. Which is worse, a speeding ticket or knowingly addicting and killing millions of Americans? I want my colleagues to understand that the success of our efforts on this front does not hinge on the enactment of a final Federal settlement. The bill applies to any settlement or judgment at the State or Federal level. As such, if the tobacco companies are found liable in any forum, or see fit to settle any of their cases with governmental entities, those payments will not be deductible. However, the bill leaves in place the deductibility of compensatory sums paid to individuals for harm done to them. Now is the time for Congress to step forward and pledge that we will not be a party to any tobacco settlement that comes at taxpayers' expense. Allowing the companies to state that they are willing to pay $368.5 billion to the Government, when in reality they are only paying two- thirds of that amount, is false advertising. The bill corrects this misleading situation to the benefit of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans whose tobacco-related illnesses might be cured now through medical research. As my colleagues will recall, the Senate passed by a vote of 98 to 0 a Sense of the Senate Resolution that Congress, and the Nation, should commit to the goal of doubling funding for NIH over the next 5 years. The actions we are taking today will help us to achieve that goal. The tax revenues which will be derived as a result of making the settlement or judgments nondeductible will be used to establish the National Trust Fund for Biomedical Research. Each year, after the President has signed the Labor/HHS/Education bill into law, the moneys in the medical research trust fund established by this bipartisan legislation will be allocated to NIH for biomedical research. Research has demonstrated that many diseases can be prevented, eliminated, detected earlier, or managed more effectively through a vast array of new medical procedures and therapies. For the first time in history, overall death rates from cancer have begun a steady decline in the United States. Ten years ago, cancer patients were offered little hope of survival. Today, however, if a breast cancer is detected at an early stage, there is a 94-percent survival rate. Today, 80 percent of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL] are alive and free of the disease 5 years after diagnosis. Genetic research has enabled Americans to learn if they are more likely to develop osteoporosis, breast cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease and other illnesses. Scientists now know that, in at least 50 percent, and possibly as many as 80 percent, of all cancers, one gene--p53--is damaged. If cancer cells growing in a dish are given healthy p53 genes, they immediately stop proliferating and die. We now know that if one inherits a mutated gene for hemochromatosis, more commonly known as iron overload disease, a disease which affects approximately 1 million Americans, then one will actually develop the disease. The benefit of knowing this is that giving blood is an effective way to manage the disease. Because of the advances made in biomedical research, people with Parkinson's disease, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, and other ailments are living longer and healthier lives. We are on the verge of cures and new treatments for diseases which have plagued our society for many years. Research is the key which will unlock the knowledge needed to find these cures. But doubling our commitment to NIH, we could improve the grant success rate from 25 to 40 percent. More patients would have access to clinical trials. Approximately 2 percent of all cancer patients are now enrolled in clinical trials. We could increase that to 20 percent. The result is that more families would have access to the most effective state-of-the-art treatment. Patients would also benefit by advances in new methods of treatment including gene therapy, immunotherapy, spinal cord rejuvenation; helping diabetics naturally produce insulin; relief for Parkinson's disease patients, and reduction in heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. We have entered a new era of medical research in this country, but we must provide the necessary funding in order to translate discoveries into new methods of diagnosis and treatment. There can be little argument that scientific advances will also have a significant positive impact upon our Nation's economy. They will result in reduced health expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, DOD, VA, and other public and private health programs. A recent study by the National Science Foundation concluded that every dollar spent on basic research permanently adds 50 cents or more each year to national output. In addition, the medical technology industry provides high-wage jobs to millions of Americans. Investment in basic science helps the United States compete in the global marketplace in such industries as pharmacology, biotechnology, and medical technology. Combined with the actions taken earlier this year to reform the FDA, public and private investment in biomedical research will ensure our ability to compete in this important industry and create new jobs. Mr. President, there are millions of Americans who are fighting a day-to-day battle against cancer, sickle cell anemia, AIDS, osteoporosis, Parkinson's disease, and other ailments. Their lives are in our hands. They are asking for hope and the opportunity for a cure. We must act now. This legislation is supported by more than 175 organizations representing a broad base of research, patient, health professions, consumer, and education communities. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these organizations be included in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan effort to help achieve the goal of doubling NIH funding over the next 5 years.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Harkin, DeWine, Santorum, Collins, Snowe, D'Amato, Smith of Oregon, Boxer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Graham, Dodd, Durbin, and Wellstone in introducing legislation that begins to realize the paramount goal of doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health [NIH] over the next 5 years. The bill ensures that any tobacco settlements or judgments are not tax deductible. As currently crafted, the global settlement specifically allows the tobacco companies to deduct the entire amount of their payments. That is a possible $128 billion break on their tax bill. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to allow them such a free ride at taxpayers' expense. More importantly, any settlement should provide funds for biomedical research, including funding to find better treatment and cures for the diseases caused by tobacco. Although the Tax Code often allows settlement amounts to be deductible, the current law provides that fines or penalties paid to a Government entity are not. The unprecedented situation we face with the tobacco industry demands that the Congress define these payments as more akin to such a fine or penalty. If a businessman cannot deduct a speeding ticket he received on his way to a meeting, tobacco shouldn't be able to deduct its payment for guaranteed immunity and certainty of liability. Which is worse, a speeding ticket or knowingly addicting and killing millions of Americans? I want my colleagues to understand that the success of our efforts on this front does not hinge on the enactment of a final Federal settlement. The bill applies to any settlement or judgment at the State or Federal level. As such, if the tobacco companies are found liable in any forum, or see fit to settle any of their cases with governmental entities, those payments will not be deductible. However, the bill leaves in place the deductibility of compensatory sums paid to individuals for harm done to them. Now is the time for Congress to step forward and pledge that we will not be a party to any tobacco settlement that comes at taxpayers' expense. Allowing the companies to state that they are willing to pay $368.5 billion to the Government, when in reality they are only paying two- thirds of that amount, is false advertising. The bill corrects this misleading situation to the benefit of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans whose tobacco-related illnesses might be cured now through medical research. As my colleagues will recall, the Senate passed by a vote of 98 to 0 a Sense of the Senate Resolution that Congress, and the Nation, should commit to the goal of doubling funding for NIH over the next 5 years. The actions we are taking today will help us to achieve that goal. The tax revenues which will be derived as a result of making the settlement or judgments nondeductible will be used to establish the National Trust Fund for Biomedical Research. Each year, after the President has signed the Labor/HHS/Education bill into law, the moneys in the medical research trust fund established by this bipartisan legislation will be allocated to NIH for biomedical research. Research has demonstrated that many diseases can be prevented, eliminated, detected earlier, or managed more effectively through a vast array of new medical procedures and therapies. For the first time in history, overall death rates from cancer have begun a steady decline in the United States. Ten years ago, cancer patients were offered little hope of survival. Today, however, if a breast cancer is detected at an early stage, there is a 94-percent survival rate. Today, 80 percent of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL] are alive and free of the disease 5 years after diagnosis. Genetic research has enabled Americans to learn if they are more likely to develop osteoporosis, breast cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease and other illnesses. Scientists now know that, in at least 50 percent, and possibly as many as 80 percent, of all cancers, one gene--p53--is damaged. If cancer cells growing in a dish are given healthy p53 genes, they immediately stop proliferating and die. We now know that if one inherits a mutated gene for hemochromatosis, more commonly known as iron overload disease, a disease which affects approximately 1 million Americans, then one will actually develop the disease. The benefit of knowing this is that giving blood is an effective way to manage the disease. Because of the advances made in biomedical research, people with Parkinson's disease, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, and other ailments are living longer and healthier lives. We are on the verge of cures and new treatments for diseases which have plagued our society for many years. Research is the key which will unlock the knowledge needed to find these cures. But doubling our commitment to NIH, we could improve the grant success rate from 25 to 40 percent. More patients would have access to clinical trials. Approximately 2 percent of all cancer patients are now enrolled in clinical trials. We could increase that to 20 percent. The result is that more families would have access to the most effective state-of-the-art treatment. Patients would also benefit by advances in new methods of treatment including gene therapy, immunotherapy, spinal cord rejuvenation; helping diabetics naturally produce insulin; relief for Parkinson's disease patients, and reduction in heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. We have entered a new era of medical research in this country, but we must provide the necessary funding in order to translate discoveries into new methods of diagnosis and treatment. There can be little argument that scientific advances will also have a significant positive impact upon our Nation's economy. They will result in reduced health expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, DOD, VA, and other public and private health programs. A recent study by the National Science Foundation concluded that every dollar spent on basic research permanently adds 50 cents or more each year to national output. In addition, the medical technology industry provides high-wage jobs to millions of Americans. Investment in basic science helps the United States compete in the global marketplace in such industries as pharmacology, biotechnology, and medical technology. Combined with the actions taken earlier this year to reform the FDA, public and private investment in biomedical research will ensure our ability to compete in this important industry and create new jobs. Mr. President, there are millions of Americans who are fighting a day-to-day battle against cancer, sickle cell anemia, AIDS, osteoporosis, Parkinson's disease, and other ailments. Their lives are in our hands. They are asking for hope and the opportunity for a cure. We must act now. This legislation is supported by more than 175 organizations representing a broad base of research, patient, health professions, consumer, and education communities. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these organizations be included in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan effort to help achieve the goal of doubling NIH funding over the next 5 years.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague for his assistance in this matter.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to address a matter regarding the refinancing of section 8 assisted properties whose bonds are financed with a financial adjustment factor [FAF]. In order to save section 8 housing assistance payment funds, the Congress through the enactment of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act encouraged owners of FAF properties to refund their bonds with lower interest rates. The recaptured section 8 savings were equally shared between the bond issuing housing agency and HUD and the housing agencies were required to use their share of the savings for affordable housing purposes. In the recently enacted VA, HUD appropriations legislation, a provision was included to encourage owners to refinance their properties by providing the owners a 15-percent share of the savings. It has come to my attention that there may be some question as to whether the fiscal year 1998 VA, HUD appropriations act would allow an owner or an issuer to refinance a FAF property which was previously refinanced. We reviewed this matter while developing the amendments to this version of S. 562. However, upon review of the appropriations language, it appears unnecessary to include statutory language to clarify this matter. I would like to ask Senator Bond, the chairman of the VA, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, if he could confirm my interpretation of this issue.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Senate is honored today to have Dr. Charles Lever with us. Dr. Lever is the senior minister at the Lake Magdalene United Methodist Church in Tampa in my home State of Florida. We are also happy to have his wife, Xiommy, who works as a hematopoeitic product specialist at Ortho Biotech and is also active in the church as a certified lay speaker and is involved in Disciple Bible Study and the Walk to Emmaus. They have two sons--Chaz who is in the seventh grade, and Chapman, who is in the first grade. Dr. Lever was called to the ordained ministry as a young man. He began his education at Wofford College in South Carolina, where he earned a bachelor of arts degree. He earned a master of divinity from the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, and a doctor of ministry from Vanderbilt University in Nashville. He has also done continuing education work at the Jerusalem Center for Church Studies in Israel, and the Robert Schuller Institute in Garden Grove, CA. Among his many educational and leadership awards and honors are the American Legion Award, induction into Phi Beta Kappa, Blue Key, and numerous other honorary fraternities and societies. Mr. President, with some 3,200 members, Lake Magdalene Methodist is one of the largest churches in Florida. But Dr. Lever's accomplishments have always extended far beyond the santuary of his church. He is a leader in numerous organizations serving the people in his local community. Among these are the 90-unit apartment complex for the elderly, 125-unit child care center for low-income families, and the Life Center for older adults that he served as minister at the Riverside Park United Methodist Church of Jacksonville, FL. He is active in both district and conference affairs of the United Methodist Church in Florida. He has served on the board of the Christian Enrichment School, the district committee on finance, and the Conference Council on Ministries. The list of Dr. Lever's church and community leadership achievements is impressive and quite extensive. I ask unanimous consent that his biography be printed in the Record in its entirety at the end of my statement. Let me say again, Mr. President, the Senate is honored and very pleased to have Dr. Lever with us today, and we appreciate his opening prayer this morning. I'm sure all my colleagues wish him and his family all the best in his ministry to the members of Lake Magdalene United Methodist Church of Tampa, FL.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I rise today to thank my colleague, Senator Gorton, for including language in the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill concerning a settlement between the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the State of Florida. The Mack-Graham amendment is a clear, noncontroversial piece of legislation that finalizes the settlement between the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the State of Florida with regards to land takings claims.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution on the Clinton-Jiang United States-People's Republic of China summit with my colleagues Senators Abraham, Nickles, and Craig. I am compelled to do this for two reasons. First, let me provide some context for my comments. I traveled to China this past March to address Hong Kong reversion issues, and returned concerned about United States-China relations. My concern grew from what I perceived as the distance between the shared humanity of American and Chinese people, and the distrust of people expressed by the autocratic Government of the People's Republic of China. My two issues with this summit are these: First, we know what President Jiang gets from this visit; we do not know what President Clinton will receive in return for the American people. Second, unfortunately, it seems that the bar has been lowered--the administration has lowered expectations for the summit--in order to more easily achieve the appearance of a successful summit. If the United States abandons realistic and important summit deliverables until a possible 1998 Clinton visit to Beijing, United States values today will be sacrificed for political gain tomorrow. Let me elaborate on these points. What does Jiang get? He gets more power in Beijing. He is the leader of the largest authoritarian government in the world. His top priority, as a Communist leader, is consolidation of power and longevity in office. His overriding goal for the summit, therefore, is to demonstrate that he can deal effectively with the United States. He wants to bring home symbolic proof that the United States views the People's Republic of China, with Jiang at the helm, as a respected global power. This state visit will deliver the symbolism President Jiang so strongly seeks. What do we get? We do not yet know because there is not an articulated United States-China policy. President Clinton has no articulated China policy and will not likely produce one during this summit. This may be the single most dangerous aspect of our relationship with China. President Clinton this week must deliver a milestone in a clearly articulated policy which supports a coherent and well defined strategy. And he must bring the Congress and American people with him. To do this, he should attain specific deliverables on human rights, weapons proliferation, and trade. Therefore, Mr President, today we are introducing this resolution to articulate our specific expectations. During this summit, the United States should do the following: State United States support for the democratization of China; call for progress on human rights, and the immediate release of prisoners of conscience, including Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan; call for concrete steps to prevent the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology, including nuclear technology and cruise missiles; call for concrete progress to cease unfair market practices; state United States commitment to maintaining regional peace and security by working with our regional allies; and reaffirm United States policy promulgated in the Taiwan Relations Act. Mr President, I hope that President Clinton will not lose this opportunity to gain concrete progress on the vitally important United States-China relationship. If we solidify Jiang's hold on political power in Beijing, and in return must wait until a possible Beijing summit next year before the American people get what they desire--trade, human rights, and national security progress--the failure of the summit will not be lost on the Congress or the American people. Nonaction represents an opportunity cost, Mr. President. My question to President Clinton is this, ``What price would you have the people of the United States and China pay for this week's headlines.''

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, tonight millions of Americans will settle into their easy chairs to watch game 5 of the World Series. They will see 22-year-old Cuban-born pitching sensation Livan Hernandez take the mound in his second World Series start for the Florida Marlins. And for the first time in this Series, the people of Cuba may have the opportunity to join the millions around the world to cheer Livan. Thanks to the graciousness of Major League Baseball and interim Commissioner Bud Selig--Radio and TV Marti will broadcast tonight's game to the people of Cuba. Now it is up to Fidel Castro to allow his people to watch their hero pitch. Cuba has consistently jammed Marti's broadcast signal. But tonight should be different. Tonight should be special because it is Livan's night. Mr. Castro, I have a message for you from the American people and baseball fans everywhere: Stop the jamming. Let Livan be seen in Cuba. For the good of your people and for the good of the game we all love so dearly, please, let Livan be seen.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Senator Kerry. Let me say that I strongly support tenant and community participation in this process. As you know, I have consistently advocated for such a role for tenants and other community residents in both the mark-to-market legislation and the public housing legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously. So I would concur that we expect PAE's to take this provision seriously, while balancing this with the need to complete the restructuring process in a timely fashion.

Mr. MACK. I agree with Senator Sarbanes that this flexibility is extremely important in dealing with disqualified properties and that with input from local governments, communities, and residents, hopefully some creativity can be used. I strongly believe that it is important that the Federal Government terminate its relationship with those owners who have abused the program and those properties where it is simply infeasible to continue to subsidize. However, we should not take a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach and ensure that the interests of residents, communities, and local governments are carefully considered. I am also concerned about those properties, not eligible for mark-to- market, whose contracts are not renewed due to noncompliance actions by owners or the poor physical condition of the property. I have some reservations about HUD's policy to simply voucher out those properties instead of exploring other creative options such as transfers or sales to resident-supported nonprofit entities.