Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gorton and Senator Hutchison of Texas be added as cosponsors.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, last Thursday, I, along with Senators Lieberman and Brownback, reintroduced the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act (S. 753). I now ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce along with my colleague Senator Lieberman the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act. The social, administrative, and fiscal problems of our Nation's capital are well documented. The District of Columbia is facing its greatest economic crisis since its establishment in 1790. Congress has taken major steps, including the creation of a financial control board, to assist the city during this current financial crisis. Despite efforts by the District's Government and Congress to manage these problems, the city has a long way to go to achieve economic self- sufficiency. Mr. President, at the root of the District's problems is an evereroding middle class. Since 1950, Washington's population has declined by nearly 250,000 residents; 68,000 left between 1988 and 1993 alone. The vast majority of these people were middle-class families whose taxes funded the city's operations. Historically, the District of Columbia has tried to offset this decline by raising taxes, leading to even more residents leaving the city in search of lower tax rates, better schools and safer streets. We believe that the best way to help the District is to promote economic growth, and the best way to promote economic growth is to significantly reduce the tax burden on its residents. Economic growth will mean more jobs, more opportunity, greater private sector investment and ultimately a better quality of life in the Nation's capital. The DCERA is an important step in luring taxpayers back to the District of Columbia. It provides tax incentives, including a 15- percent flat income tax rate for all District resident and deductions of: $15,000 for individual filers; $25,000 for head of household filers; and $30,000 for married filers. Many critics of the flat rate argue that it is a bonanza for the rich and the poor, but does little to address the needs of the middle class. We have added several incentives designed specifically to assist the middle class. First, the bill includes a $5,000 first time home buyers' provision designed to assist middle-class families in purchasing homes within the District of Columbia. Second, the bill maintains the current home mortgage and charitable deductions. Finally, we have included a zero capital gains tax rate to help spur investment by District and non-District residents. Middle class residents should benefit significantly from this provision because it encourages them to invest their earnings and it offers a generous reward if and when a middle- class resident sells their homes. Besides these incentives we have included a brownfields provision that encourages companies to clean up environmentally damaged land that is sure to improve the quality of life for District residents and their families. This bill also provides an opportunity for all Americans to participate in the economic stability of the District of Columbia by allowing them to have a zero capital gains rate for investments made within the District. We believe that Americans everywhere have great pride in this city and truly want it to represent all the best aspects of this Nation, including a vibrant economy. For too long the city's economy has been linked with the growth and declines of the Federal Government. I believe that the capital gains provisions will encourage nongovernmental economic investment in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC is not only home to the people who live here, it is truly the Nation's city. We believe that these incentives, along with responsible and sensible financial management, are just what this great city needs to regain its past glory.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today because a bill is being introduced by Senators Roth, Moynihan, and members of the Finance Committee which seeks to amend trade laws and provisions referring to ``Most Favored Nation'' [MFN] trading status. They seek to rename MFN, ``Normal Trade Relations.'' I am not joining my Finance Committee colleagues on this bill today. But I would gladly support this initiative once the United States has an effective China policy. Mr. President, the reason we annually consider China's trade, human rights, and national security behavior during the MFN renewal debate is because we do not have an acceptable alternative. The goal, therefore, of this year's debate should not be to simply extend or revoke MFN for the PRC. I suggest, instead, that we endeavor to address the shortcomings of our China policy so that we do not need the annual MFN issue to debate China. Mr. President, we need a real China policy to replace the MFN revocation threat, not a name change. If the issue were just about the name, Americans would not voice such strong opposition to trading with China as if it were a normal country. The fact is, Mr. President, China is not like other trading nations. It is perhaps the worst violator of human rights and weapons nonproliferation standards in the world. The PRC trades unfairly, persecutes people of faith, imprisons and tortures democrats, proliferates weapons technology, sells arms to street gangs in the United States, and disbands democratic institutions in Hong Kong. The PRC does this while receiving international aid, American technology--much with military applications, and free access to the American market. This so-called engagement policy seems hollow and dangerous. Merely changing the name of MFN will not change this reality. Mr. President, I traveled to Hong Kong and China in late March this year with my colleague and fellow co-chair of the Senate's Hong Kong caucus, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. I returned from this mission more concerned about Hong Kong than when I departed. The Chinese leadership tried to put to rest my concerns for Hong Kong by reassuring me that democracy would be returned to Hong Kong once the people received proper civic education. This distrust of people is apparent in China's actions toward Hong Kong's civil and political freedoms. It also caused me to renew my concern for our China policy. My position on this bill, and on the MFN debate in general, arises from my desire for good relations with China. I know this is in the best interest of America, China, and the world. There are a tremendous number of issues which Americans wish to raise with China. In 1997, these include Hong Kong reversion, weapons proliferation, religious persecution, PRC-Taiwan relations, human rights, involvement in U.S. elections, and our unequal trade relationship. Many people advise, however, that opposing MFN represents a hollow-- essentially meaningless--threat. And yet, without a responsible alternative, Members of Congress must choose between voting to revoke MFN or taking no action. Neither option is acceptable. Neither choice is in our Nation's best interest. So that our children and the children of China do not inherit an adversarial relationship, we must do two things in 1997. First, we must engage in a domestic debate on China; we must get beyond hollow engagement and hollow threats. Second, we must ensure our policy demonstrates to China that their actions have consequences: That they are a member of the world community and actions which violate agreements and norms are not merely internal matters. As many people know, I had discussed an idea to extend the current MFN status for the PRC for an additional 3 months in 1997. In offering this idea, I sought to accomplish the above two goals. It is too late for the House to take action on the 3-month extension as I had proposed it, but it is not too late for us to unite behind a call for action. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished Finance Committee colleagues who believe we must get beyond the annual MFN revocation threat. But the way to do this is not to change the name of MFN; we must address the real problem. We must develop new instruments which address our interests with China. I fear, Mr. President, that the name change does not accomplish this most important goal; in fact, to the extent that it decreases our resolve to discuss China, this bill jeopardizes our national interests. It is for this reason that I do not join my colleagues today in offering this name-change legislation. Instead, I invite the Congress and the President to join me in making the best use of this year's debate. We must utilize this time to develop and advance our China policy, not merely put it off for another year.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce along with my colleague Senator Lieberman the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act. The social, administrative, and fiscal problems of our Nation's capital are well documented. The District of Columbia is facing its greatest economic crisis since its establishment in 1790. Congress has taken major steps, including the creation of a financial control board, to assist the city during this current financial crisis. Despite efforts by the District's Government and Congress to manage these problems, the city has a long way to go to achieve economic self- sufficiency. Mr. President, at the root of the District's problems is an evereroding middle class. Since 1950, Washington's population has declined by nearly 250,000 residents; 68,000 left between 1988 and 1993 alone. The vast majority of these people were middle-class families whose taxes funded the city's operations. Historically, the District of Columbia has tried to offset this decline by raising taxes, leading to even more residents leaving the city in search of lower tax rates, better schools and safer streets. We believe that the best way to help the District is to promote economic growth, and the best way to promote economic growth is to significantly reduce the tax burden on its residents. Economic growth will mean more jobs, more opportunity, greater private sector investment and ultimately a better quality of life in the Nation's capital. The DCERA is an important step in luring taxpayers back to the District of Columbia. It provides tax incentives, including a 15- percent flat income tax rate for all District resident and deductions of: $15,000 for individual filers; $25,000 for head of household filers; and $30,000 for married filers. Many critics of the flat rate argue that it is a bonanza for the rich and the poor, but does little to address the needs of the middle class. We have added several incentives designed specifically to assist the middle class. First, the bill includes a $5,000 first time home buyers' provision designed to assist middle-class families in purchasing homes within the District of Columbia. Second, the bill maintains the current home mortgage and charitable deductions. Finally, we have included a zero capital gains tax rate to help spur investment by District and non-District residents. Middle class residents should benefit significantly from this provision because it encourages them to invest their earnings and it offers a generous reward if and when a middle- class resident sells their homes. Besides these incentives we have included a brownfields provision that encourages companies to clean up environmentally damaged land that is sure to improve the quality of life for District residents and their families. This bill also provides an opportunity for all Americans to participate in the economic stability of the District of Columbia by allowing them to have a zero capital gains rate for investments made within the District. We believe that Americans everywhere have great pride in this city and truly want it to represent all the best aspects of this Nation, including a vibrant economy. For too long the city's economy has been linked with the growth and declines of the Federal Government. I believe that the capital gains provisions will encourage nongovernmental economic investment in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC is not only home to the people who live here, it is truly the Nation's city. We believe that these incentives, along with responsible and sensible financial management, are just what this great city needs to regain its past glory.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues in both the House and Senate, from both sides of the aisle, for their diligent work on S. 717, the IDEA Improvement Act of 1997: Their commitment to ensuring that children with disabilities have continued access to the opportunities and resources essential to becoming independent and contributing members of society. Since Congress first enacted legislation to ensure that students with disabilities were no longer denied educational services, few changes have been made. Today, the world is a very different place, and Congress needs to address the issues currently facing both students and educators. These include changes to ensure States have flexibility in using Federal funds; the ability for schools to effectively discipline disruptive children; and provisions to encourage alternative dispute resolution procedures to ensure timely and cost-effective responses to the needs and concerns of parents and administrators. S. 717 accomplishes these important goals. Discipline of special education students has been a matter of contention for several years. Currently, except in cases involving firearms, schools are hindered from removing a disabled child from their current educational setting unless the parents of the child agree with the removal decision. Under S. 717, schools can discipline a disabled child just as they would on a nondisabled child if the behavior is determined not to be a manifestation of the child's disability. A hearing officer would then be able to remove the child from his or her current educational placement. This is an important change because, currently, a court injunction is required to remove a dangerous child. S. 717 also prohibits States from ceasing to provide services to a child whose behavior warrants expulsion from school. In cases such as this, States would be required to educate the child in an alternative setting, which is a continuation of the guarantee of a free, appropriate, public education. This bill ensures parents have continued access to due process by requiring States to offer voluntary mediation services to parents and schools. Currently, 39 States offer mediation to parents in an effort to resolve disputes concerning their children. Florida is one of these States, and its mediation program has been an overwhelming success since it was instituted in 1992. A majority of all mediation cases in Florida are reconciled, reducing the need for more costly litigation. Mr. President, this bill will aid in the education of the 319,012 disabled students in Florida. I am pleased that Members of Congress and the administration have been able to come together to reach a consensus on this bill. It will shift current policy from a focus on bureaucracy and paperwork to educating our students. I want to commend Chairmen Jeffords and Goodling, Senator Lott, as well as Senators Frist and Coats for the leadership they have shown on this important issue. I also want to commend State of Florida officials who have already enacted many of the changes contained in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate some very bright and promising students from the State of Florida who visited our Nation's Capitol last week to participate in the ``We the People * * *'' nationwide championship on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am pleased to announce that students attending the Our Lady of Lourdes Academy in Miami finished in first place. At the 3-day competition, students demonstrated their knowledge of the Constitution, U.S. history, and current issues facing our Nation. Their diligent preparation and impressive demonstration of their knowledge propelled them to first place. Led by their teacher, Rosie Hefferman, the following students competed on behalf of the Our Lady of Lourdes Academy: Melissa Alvarez, Sonia Borell, Jackie Chisholm, Annette Comas, Caroline DePosada, Dania Fyffe, Vanessa Harries, Jaqui Lage, Carolina Latour, Alicia Llosa, Giselle Perez, Jennifer Rodriguez, and Caroline Ulvert. I would also like to recognize the district coordinator, John Doyle, and the State coordinator, Annette Boyd Pitts. I extend my sincere congratulations to these fine students, their families, and their teachers. They worked hard to achieve this impressive goal. Their parents and teachers long realized that education is an investment in our future and critical to our Nation's growth, and these students have acted on that sentiment. Students around the country should view their accomplishment as an inspiration as they seek to achieve their own goals. I hope the students from Our Lady of Lourdes Academy enjoyed their experience while visiting Washington, DC, and that they will continue striving to excel in their studies. I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation which would allow States to keep almost all of their gas tax revenues for their own transportation projects without interference from Washington. The Transportation Empowerment Act--which being re-introduced in the House by Representative John Kasich--would replace the current law governing the Federal highways program, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. Under ISTEA, Washington currently collects about $25 billion each year in dedicated transportation taxes, skims money off the top for demonstration projects, skims more off the top to fund its highway bureaucracy, runs the remainder through a maze of formulas, and then returns what's left to the States to fund their transportation programs. However, this circle of waste, has shortchanged our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Today, notwithstanding the tremendous growth in spending, our Nation's transportation investment backlog is estimated to be at least $200 billion. This backlog includes the following deficiencies: 25 percent of our highways are in poor/mediocre condition; 24 to 28 percent of bridges are structurally deficient/ functionally obsolete; 24 percent of rail transit facilities are in substandard/poor condition; and 20 to 24 percent of transit buses need to be replaced. The fact is that our country is getting less from our transportation dollars. Part of the reason for this is reflected in the growth of administrative costs. These costs, as a function of Federal highway construction dollars, have risen from 7 percent in 1956 to over 21 percent today. The history of the Federal program has shown us that the current system [ISTEA] of collecting and distributing gas tax dollars needed by States to implement their own transportation needs is too inefficient, too costly, and too bureaucratic. Washington simply can't meet the challenges facing the Nation's infrastructure. Simply put: The era of big Government is over. And in this era, the highway system is a perfect example of a program that ought to be returned to the States. It's a simple formula for success--less Washington, more roads. In fact, transportation economists and State officials estimate that if States weren't hamstrung by Washington's arcane formulas and mandates, they could get 20 percent more highways and transit systems for every dollar collected. I have introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act because I believe we can better serve our Nation's transportation needs primarily through State run transportation programs, without Federal micromanagement and without laundering gas tax dollars through Washington. key provisions of the transportation empowerment act The legislation continues a streamlined ``core'' Federal program. This core Federal transportation program will include the maintenance of the current Interstate System, Federal lands programs--Indian reservation roads, public lands, parkways and park roads--highway safety programs and emergency disaster relief. Also included is continued general fund support for transit programs. The bill authorizes States to establish multistate compacts for planning, financing, and establishing safety and construction standards, and encourages innovative approaches on the part of the States, such as use of infrastructure banks and privitization. The bill repeals the requirement that States repay Federal grants associated with transportation infrastructure which is slated for privatization. The legislation provides a 4-year transition period, beginning in fiscal year 1998, during which time the existing 14 cents gas tax dedicated to transportation purposes would remain in place. After funding the new streamlined core program and paying off outstanding bills, the remainder is returned to States in a block grant. At the end of the transition period, beginning in fiscal year 2002, the Federal gas tax would be reduced to 2 cents--that amount necessary to fund the core Federal programs. Under the bill each State would be free to replace the Federal gas tax and to keep those dollars within the State to use as each sees fit. The bottom line is this--for far too long Washington has had a stranglehold on States' transportation needs. It's time for Washington to let go and re-empower the States to make their own decisions. More information about the Transportation Empowerment Act is available via the Internet at www.senate.gov/mack/ tea2.html.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation which would allow States to keep almost all of their gas tax revenues for their own transportation projects without interference from Washington. The Transportation Empowerment Act--which being re-introduced in the House by Representative John Kasich--would replace the current law governing the Federal highways program, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. Under ISTEA, Washington currently collects about $25 billion each year in dedicated transportation taxes, skims money off the top for demonstration projects, skims more off the top to fund its highway bureaucracy, runs the remainder through a maze of formulas, and then returns what's left to the States to fund their transportation programs. However, this circle of waste, has shortchanged our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Today, notwithstanding the tremendous growth in spending, our Nation's transportation investment backlog is estimated to be at least $200 billion. This backlog includes the following deficiencies: 25 percent of our highways are in poor/mediocre condition; 24 to 28 percent of bridges are structurally deficient/ functionally obsolete; 24 percent of rail transit facilities are in substandard/poor condition; and 20 to 24 percent of transit buses need to be replaced. The fact is that our country is getting less from our transportation dollars. Part of the reason for this is reflected in the growth of administrative costs. These costs, as a function of Federal highway construction dollars, have risen from 7 percent in 1956 to over 21 percent today. The history of the Federal program has shown us that the current system [ISTEA] of collecting and distributing gas tax dollars needed by States to implement their own transportation needs is too inefficient, too costly, and too bureaucratic. Washington simply can't meet the challenges facing the Nation's infrastructure. Simply put: The era of big Government is over. And in this era, the highway system is a perfect example of a program that ought to be returned to the States. It's a simple formula for success--less Washington, more roads. In fact, transportation economists and State officials estimate that if States weren't hamstrung by Washington's arcane formulas and mandates, they could get 20 percent more highways and transit systems for every dollar collected. I have introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act because I believe we can better serve our Nation's transportation needs primarily through State run transportation programs, without Federal micromanagement and without laundering gas tax dollars through Washington. key provisions of the transportation empowerment act The legislation continues a streamlined ``core'' Federal program. This core Federal transportation program will include the maintenance of the current Interstate System, Federal lands programs--Indian reservation roads, public lands, parkways and park roads--highway safety programs and emergency disaster relief. Also included is continued general fund support for transit programs. The bill authorizes States to establish multistate compacts for planning, financing, and establishing safety and construction standards, and encourages innovative approaches on the part of the States, such as use of infrastructure banks and privitization. The bill repeals the requirement that States repay Federal grants associated with transportation infrastructure which is slated for privatization. The legislation provides a 4-year transition period, beginning in fiscal year 1998, during which time the existing 14 cents gas tax dedicated to transportation purposes would remain in place. After funding the new streamlined core program and paying off outstanding bills, the remainder is returned to States in a block grant. At the end of the transition period, beginning in fiscal year 2002, the Federal gas tax would be reduced to 2 cents--that amount necessary to fund the core Federal programs. Under the bill each State would be free to replace the Federal gas tax and to keep those dollars within the State to use as each sees fit. The bottom line is this--for far too long Washington has had a stranglehold on States' transportation needs. It's time for Washington to let go and re-empower the States to make their own decisions. More information about the Transportation Empowerment Act is available via the Internet at www.senate.gov/mack/ tea2.html.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I would like to engage the chairman of the committee in a colloquy to further define the purpose of section 2 of the Senior Citizen Home Equity Protection Act. Section 2 would authorize new disclosure requirements by amending the existing eligibility requirements of HUD's home equity conversion mortgage [HECM] program. The National Housing Act would be amended to ensure that to be eligible for FHA insurance a home equity conversion mortgage shall have been executed by a mortgagor who has received full disclosure of all costs to the mortgagor for obtaining the mortgage, including any costs of estate planning, financial advice or other related services. Is it correct that this section would authorize HUD to require HUD- approved housing counseling agencies and FHA-approved lenders offering the HECM program to ask potential borrowers a series of questions aimed at determining if they have been or are about to be charged unnecessary or excessive fees by a service provider?

Mr. MACK. Would the Senator please describe the implementation requirements of S. 562?

Mr. MACK. Is it also the intent of the legislation that any third party broker should be required to inform the homeowner of the availability of information and assistance regarding the HUD home equity conversion mortgage program at little or no cost from HUD, HUD- approved housing counseling agencies and FHA-approved lenders?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I am submitting a concurrent resolution today to congratulate the people of Israel and commemorate the 30-year unity of Jerusalem. Jerusalem must remain an undivided city. As a unified city of Israel for the past 30 years, Jerusalem has protected the rights of every ethnic and religious group. This must continue. In spite of all that the Congress has done, recent news continues to make reference to Israeli settlements in Jerusalem. Jewish communities and neighborhoods in Jerusalem are not settlements. There is only one Jerusalem, and only one Israel. Jerusalem is an indivisible part of Israel. Israel's friends in Congress understand this. This concurrent resolution is an expression of this support.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of Senators D'Amato, Bond, and Bennett, the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997. This bill is a serious effort to reform the Nation's assisted and insured multifamily housing portfolio in a responsible manner that balances both fiscal and public policy goals. This legislation will save scarce Federal subsidy dollars while preserving the affordability and availability of decent and safe rental housing for lower income households. About 20 years ago, the Federal Government encouraged private developers to construct affordable rental housing by providing mortgage insurance through the Federal Housing Administration [FHA] and rental housing assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] project-based section 8 program. In addition, tax incentives for the development of low-income housing were provided through the Tax Code until 1986. This combination of financial incentives resulted in the creation of thousands of decent, safe, and affordable housing properties. However, flaws in the section 8 rental assistance program allowed owners to receive more Federal dollars in rental subsidy than were necessary to maintain the properties as decent and affordable rental housing, and we are beginning to pay the price for excessive rental subsidies. A recent HUD study found that almost two-thirds of assisted properties have comparable rents greater than comparable market rents, in some cases almost 200 percent of area market rents. In addition, like the severely distressed public housing stock, some of these section 8 projects have become targets and havens for crime and drug activities. Thus, in some cases, taxpayers are paying costly subsidies for inferior housing. We believe that a policy that pays excessive rental subsidies for housing is not fair to the American taxpayer, nor can it be sustained in the current budget climate. It is widely understood that there is a funding crisis in the renewal of HUD's expiring section 8 rental assistance contracts. Indeed, HUD Secretary Cuomo has called the section 8 contract renewal problem ``the greatest crisis HUD has ever faced.'' The contract renewal problem involves all of HUD's section 8 inventory, both project-based and tenant-based--in all more than 3 million units of low-income housing. The new budget authority needed to renew expiring contracts at current levels will grow from $3.6 billion in the current fiscal year to almost $10 billion in fiscal year 1998 to an estimated $18 billion in fiscal year 2002. Over the next several years, a majority of the section 8 contracts on the 8,500 FHA-insured properties will expire. If contracts continue to be renewed at existing levels, the cost of renewing these contracts will grow from about $2 billion in fiscal year 1998 to $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2002 and more than $7.7 billion 10 years from now. Thus, the project-based section 8 inventory, which is addressed in this legislation, is a significant part of the overall section 8 renewal problem. The implications of not renewing project-based section 8 contracts are potentially devastating. Without renewals, most of the FHA-insured and section 8-assisted multifamily mortgages--with an unpaid principal balance of $18 billion--will default and result in claims on the FHA insurance funds. This could lead to more severe actions, such as foreclosure, which will adversely affect residents and communities. Federally assisted and insured housing serves almost 1.6 million families with an average annual income of $7,000. About half of the households are elderly or contain persons with disabilities. Many of these developments are located in rural areas where no other rental housing exists. Some of these properties serve as anchors of neighborhoods where the economic stability of the neighborhood is dependent on the vitality of these properties. The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act addresses the problem of expiring section 8 project-based assistance contracts through a new, comprehensive structure that provides a wide variety of tools to address the spiraling costs of section 8 assistance without harming residents or communities. The bill will reduce the long-term ongoing costs of Federal subsidies by reducing rents to a level that more closely approximates market area rents and restructuring the underlying debt insured by the FHA. The bill also contains a provision that will minimize the potential adverse tax consequences to owners that result from debt restructuring. The bill also recognizes that HUD lacks the staffing capacity and expertise to oversee effectively its portfolio of multifamily housing properties or to administer a debt restructuring program. Indeed, one of the principal problems with developing a portfolio restructuring proposal has been the lack of good information on the characteristics or the condition of the properties in FHA's multifamily mortgage portfolio. Accordingly, the bill would transfer the functions and responsibilities of the restructuring program to capable State and local housing finance agencies, who would act as participating administrative entities in managing this program. The bill provides incentives to administering entities to ensure that the American taxpayer is paying the least amount of money required to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing. Any amount of incentives provided to State and local entities would only be used for low-income housing purposes. Owners who clearly violate housing quality standards would no longer be tolerated. The bill screens out bad owners and managers and nonviable projects from the inventory and provides tougher and more effective enforcement tools that will minimize fraud and abuse of FHA insurance and assisted housing programs. Last, the bill provides tools to recapitalize the assisted stock that suffers from deferred maintenance. It provides the opportunity for tenants, local governments, and the community in which the project is located to participate in the restructuring process in a meaningful way. Residents would also be empowered through opportunities to purchase properties. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize how important it is to address this issue this year. Delays will only harm the assisted housing stock, its residents and communities, and the financial stability of the FHA insurance funds. I would add that, as we face an explosion in the cost of section 8 contract renewals, we cannot afford to pay more than is reasonable to renew expiring contracts. There is strong support on both sides of the aisle to renew all expiring section 8 contracts next year. But to an extent, the future credibility of the section 8 program, which is so important to 3 million families, depends on our ability to control costs today. This legislation will protect the Federal Government's investment in assisted housing and ensure that participating administrative entities are held accountable for their activities. It is also our goal that this process will ensure the long-term viability of these projects with minimal Federal involvement. It is a sincere effort to reduce the cost to the Federal Government while recognizing the needs of low-income families and communities throughout the Nation. In closing, I also want to express my hope that the administration will begin to play an active and constructive role in dealing with this section 8 issue. For the last 2 years, we have waited for a concrete administration proposal for portfolio restructuring, but we have received nothing but a series of concept papers and statements of principles. We cannot wait much longer for the administration to come to the table with a serious proposal to deal with a critical budget problem that could affect all of HUD's programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of Senators D'Amato, Bond, and Bennett, the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997. This bill is a serious effort to reform the Nation's assisted and insured multifamily housing portfolio in a responsible manner that balances both fiscal and public policy goals. This legislation will save scarce Federal subsidy dollars while preserving the affordability and availability of decent and safe rental housing for lower income households. About 20 years ago, the Federal Government encouraged private developers to construct affordable rental housing by providing mortgage insurance through the Federal Housing Administration [FHA] and rental housing assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] project-based section 8 program. In addition, tax incentives for the development of low-income housing were provided through the Tax Code until 1986. This combination of financial incentives resulted in the creation of thousands of decent, safe, and affordable housing properties. However, flaws in the section 8 rental assistance program allowed owners to receive more Federal dollars in rental subsidy than were necessary to maintain the properties as decent and affordable rental housing, and we are beginning to pay the price for excessive rental subsidies. A recent HUD study found that almost two-thirds of assisted properties have comparable rents greater than comparable market rents, in some cases almost 200 percent of area market rents. In addition, like the severely distressed public housing stock, some of these section 8 projects have become targets and havens for crime and drug activities. Thus, in some cases, taxpayers are paying costly subsidies for inferior housing. We believe that a policy that pays excessive rental subsidies for housing is not fair to the American taxpayer, nor can it be sustained in the current budget climate. It is widely understood that there is a funding crisis in the renewal of HUD's expiring section 8 rental assistance contracts. Indeed, HUD Secretary Cuomo has called the section 8 contract renewal problem ``the greatest crisis HUD has ever faced.'' The contract renewal problem involves all of HUD's section 8 inventory, both project-based and tenant-based--in all more than 3 million units of low-income housing. The new budget authority needed to renew expiring contracts at current levels will grow from $3.6 billion in the current fiscal year to almost $10 billion in fiscal year 1998 to an estimated $18 billion in fiscal year 2002. Over the next several years, a majority of the section 8 contracts on the 8,500 FHA-insured properties will expire. If contracts continue to be renewed at existing levels, the cost of renewing these contracts will grow from about $2 billion in fiscal year 1998 to $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2002 and more than $7.7 billion 10 years from now. Thus, the project-based section 8 inventory, which is addressed in this legislation, is a significant part of the overall section 8 renewal problem. The implications of not renewing project-based section 8 contracts are potentially devastating. Without renewals, most of the FHA-insured and section 8-assisted multifamily mortgages--with an unpaid principal balance of $18 billion--will default and result in claims on the FHA insurance funds. This could lead to more severe actions, such as foreclosure, which will adversely affect residents and communities. Federally assisted and insured housing serves almost 1.6 million families with an average annual income of $7,000. About half of the households are elderly or contain persons with disabilities. Many of these developments are located in rural areas where no other rental housing exists. Some of these properties serve as anchors of neighborhoods where the economic stability of the neighborhood is dependent on the vitality of these properties. The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act addresses the problem of expiring section 8 project-based assistance contracts through a new, comprehensive structure that provides a wide variety of tools to address the spiraling costs of section 8 assistance without harming residents or communities. The bill will reduce the long-term ongoing costs of Federal subsidies by reducing rents to a level that more closely approximates market area rents and restructuring the underlying debt insured by the FHA. The bill also contains a provision that will minimize the potential adverse tax consequences to owners that result from debt restructuring. The bill also recognizes that HUD lacks the staffing capacity and expertise to oversee effectively its portfolio of multifamily housing properties or to administer a debt restructuring program. Indeed, one of the principal problems with developing a portfolio restructuring proposal has been the lack of good information on the characteristics or the condition of the properties in FHA's multifamily mortgage portfolio. Accordingly, the bill would transfer the functions and responsibilities of the restructuring program to capable State and local housing finance agencies, who would act as participating administrative entities in managing this program. The bill provides incentives to administering entities to ensure that the American taxpayer is paying the least amount of money required to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing. Any amount of incentives provided to State and local entities would only be used for low-income housing purposes. Owners who clearly violate housing quality standards would no longer be tolerated. The bill screens out bad owners and managers and nonviable projects from the inventory and provides tougher and more effective enforcement tools that will minimize fraud and abuse of FHA insurance and assisted housing programs. Last, the bill provides tools to recapitalize the assisted stock that suffers from deferred maintenance. It provides the opportunity for tenants, local governments, and the community in which the project is located to participate in the restructuring process in a meaningful way. Residents would also be empowered through opportunities to purchase properties. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize how important it is to address this issue this year. Delays will only harm the assisted housing stock, its residents and communities, and the financial stability of the FHA insurance funds. I would add that, as we face an explosion in the cost of section 8 contract renewals, we cannot afford to pay more than is reasonable to renew expiring contracts. There is strong support on both sides of the aisle to renew all expiring section 8 contracts next year. But to an extent, the future credibility of the section 8 program, which is so important to 3 million families, depends on our ability to control costs today. This legislation will protect the Federal Government's investment in assisted housing and ensure that participating administrative entities are held accountable for their activities. It is also our goal that this process will ensure the long-term viability of these projects with minimal Federal involvement. It is a sincere effort to reduce the cost to the Federal Government while recognizing the needs of low-income families and communities throughout the Nation. In closing, I also want to express my hope that the administration will begin to play an active and constructive role in dealing with this section 8 issue. For the last 2 years, we have waited for a concrete administration proposal for portfolio restructuring, but we have received nothing but a series of concept papers and statements of principles. We cannot wait much longer for the administration to come to the table with a serious proposal to deal with a critical budget problem that could affect all of HUD's programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senator Shelby, which provides real cuts in the capital gains rate and indexes capital gains to account for inflation. As we work to achieve a balanced budget, it is our belief that a real reduction in the capital gains rate is essential to ensure greater growth, innovation, and prosperity. Accordingly, the legislation we have proposed offers the best elements of existing capital gains proposals. Perhaps most importantly, this proposal ensures that homeowners, family farms, and small businesses are not penalized for inflationary-- phantom--gains by providing for the indexation of capital gains. The importance of indexation is made clear in the accompanying report recently prepared by the Joint Economic Committee. Additionally, our bill will offer a 50-percent rate reduction for individuals and corporations, and allow the deduction for a loss on the sale of a principal residence. Finally, this legislation encourages investment in small businesses by increasing the exclusion from gains for small business stock from 50 to 75 percent; reducing the requirement for holding stock from 5 to 3 years; increasing the eligibility size to $100 million, and providing a 60-day grace period for the rollover of stock between small businesses. Again, I want to restate the importance of a reduced capital gains rate, which benefits all Americans by stimulating economic growth and prosperity and leading to innovation in biomedical research and other life-enhancing technologies. I look forward to my colleagues joining me in this effort to ensure that a real capital gains rate reduction is included in any balanced budget package the Congress puts together in the coming months. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution saluting the University of Florida football team on winning the 1996 National Football Championship. As a proud alumnus of the University of Florida, I join with all those who have worn the Orange and Blue--both on and off the field--in honoring Coach Steve Spurrier, his staff and the football team for this outstanding accomplishment. From its humble beginnings in 1906 to the present, the University of Florida's football program has had a rich and proud history. But 1996 will be forever known in the hearts and minds of the Gator faithful as ``The Year of the Gator.'' From the season opener in ``The Swamp'' to the national championship title game in the Sugar Bowl, the Gator faithful knew that with Steve Spurrier as their coach and Danny Wuerffel as the team's quarterback, field leader and spiritual leader, the 1996 season would indeed be one to remember. The 1996 football team compiled a record of 12 wins and 1 loss and outscored their opponents 611 to 221 points in winning its fourth consecutive SEC championship and its first-ever national football championship. For this achievement, the University of Florida was recognized by the Associated Press and major college football coaches as the 1996 national champions. This season will also be remembered because for the first time in the history of the Heisman Trophy, an award which is presented annually to college football's most outstanding player, the winner played under a head coach who also had won the Heisman Trophy. Coach Steve Spurrier and Danny Wuerffel should be commended for this high honor. It is also important to note that for the first time since the NCAA has been keeping records, two division I college football teams from the same State have played each other for college football's national championship. I also want to take this moment to honor Coach Bobby Bowden and the Florida State University football team for their outstanding season and for reaching the national championship game. While they didn't win the game, the Seminoles and their fans should be proud of their achievements and commended for an outstanding season. The State of Florida is indeed fortunate to be home to three of the finest college football teams in the Nation: The University of Florida, Florida State University, and the University of Miami. Together these three teams combined have won six college football national championships. But in 1996, the national football championship was won by the University of Florida. Not only is this a special accomplishment that will long be remembered by the coaches and players, but it is also a moment to savor for Gator fans. After 90 years of ups and downs, great victories and frustration, the Fightin' Gators are finally the national champions of college football. All the loyal sons and daughters of the University of Florida--wherever they may be--join me today in congratulating Coach Steve Spurrier, his staff, and the 1996 Fightin' Gator football team on winning the 1996 college football's national championship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the names of the Gator players, coaches, and staff along with their season record and the final polls with the Florida Gators in the top position as the national champions.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators D'Amato, Bond, Faircloth, and Grams, the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997. This bill is similar to public and assisted housing reform legislation, S. 1260, that was introduced in the 104th Congress and passed unanimously by the Senate. The Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 addresses a public housing system fraught with counterproductive rules and regulations that make it impossible for even the best run public housing authorities [PHA's] to operate effectively and efficiently. It will help to make public housing a platform from which residents can achieve the goal of economic independence and self-sufficiency. In addition, it promotes increased residential choice and mobility by increasing opportunities for residents to use tenant-based assistance. Most public housing today serves only the poorest of the poor--on average those with incomes at 17 percent of area median. The gap between tenant rent contributions and the cost of operating public housing is growing wider than the ability of Federal housing subsidy funds to close it. PHA's are denied the flexibility necessary to maintain the existing supply of public housing in decent and safe condition, and in some cases are even constrained from demolishing vacant or nonviable public housing developments. Just as these rules have made it difficult for housing authorities to provide and maintain decent and safe housing or to meet basic operating costs, these rules have been even worse for tenants. They have destroyed the ability of families to move up and out of public housing and become economically self-sufficient. Public housing rent rules, in particular, create strong economic disincentives for residents to work or seek higher paying jobs. The following reforms contained in the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act represent significant improvements in current public and assisted housing policies. First, the bill consolidates a multitude of programs into two flexible block grants to expand the eligible uses of funds and allow more creative and efficient use of resources. The bill also repeals a number of current programs that are obsolete, unused, or unfunded. Second, it institutes permanent rent reforms such as ceiling rents, earned income adjustments, and minimum rents that provide PHA's with the tools to develop rental policies that encourage and reward work and further the goal of creating mixed-income communities. The bill also removes the floor on rents that may be charged under the Brooke amendment, while assuring that poor families will not pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent. Third, the bill requires tough, swift action against PHA's with severe management deficiencies and provides HUD or court-appointed receivers with the necessary tools and powers to deal with troubled agencies and protect public housing residents. Fourth, it requires intervention with respect to severely distressed public housing developments that trap residents in deplorable living conditions and are costly to operate or maintain. It provides residents with alternative housing using vouchers or other available housing. Fifth, the bill permanently repeals the one-for-one replacement requirement and streamlines the demolition and disposition process to permit PHA's to demolish or sell vacant or obsolete public housing. Sixth, it gives PHA's broad flexibility to develop or participate with other providers of affordable housing in the development of mixed- income, mixed finance developments. Seventh, it repeals Federal preferences that have had the unintended consequence of concentrating the poorest of the poor in public housing developments and allows PHA's to operate according to locally established preferences consistent with local housing needs. The bill still maintains the requirement that most housing assistance be targeted to very low-income households. Eighth, the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act calls on PHA's to increase coordination with State and local welfare agencies to ensure that welfare recipients living in public housing will have the full opportunity to move from welfare to work. Ninth, the bill provides residents with an active voice in developing the local PHA plans that will govern the operations and management of housing and for direct participation on housing authority boards of directors. It also authorizes funds for resident organizations to develop resident management and empowerment activities. Finally, it merges the Section 8 voucher and certificate programs into a single, choice-based program designed to operate more effectively in the private marketplace. It repeals requirements that are administratively burdensome to landlords, such as take-one, take- all, endless lease and 90-day termination notice requirements. These reforms will make participation in the section 8 tenant-based program more attractive to private landlords and increase housing choices for lower income families. The reforms contained in this legislation will significantly improve the nation's public housing and tenant-based rental assistance program and the lives of those who reside in Federally assisted housing. The funding flexibility, substantial deregulation of the day-to-day operations and policies of public authorities, encouragement of mixed- finance developments, policies to deal with distressed and troubled public housing, and rent reforms will change the face of public housing for PHA's, residents, and local communities. Reform of the public housing system has been and should remain a bipartisan effort. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues toward early passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators D'Amato, Bond, Faircloth, and Grams, the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997. This bill is similar to public and assisted housing reform legislation, S. 1260, that was introduced in the 104th Congress and passed unanimously by the Senate. The Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 addresses a public housing system fraught with counterproductive rules and regulations that make it impossible for even the best run public housing authorities [PHA's] to operate effectively and efficiently. It will help to make public housing a platform from which residents can achieve the goal of economic independence and self-sufficiency. In addition, it promotes increased residential choice and mobility by increasing opportunities for residents to use tenant-based assistance. Most public housing today serves only the poorest of the poor--on average those with incomes at 17 percent of area median. The gap between tenant rent contributions and the cost of operating public housing is growing wider than the ability of Federal housing subsidy funds to close it. PHA's are denied the flexibility necessary to maintain the existing supply of public housing in decent and safe condition, and in some cases are even constrained from demolishing vacant or nonviable public housing developments. Just as these rules have made it difficult for housing authorities to provide and maintain decent and safe housing or to meet basic operating costs, these rules have been even worse for tenants. They have destroyed the ability of families to move up and out of public housing and become economically self-sufficient. Public housing rent rules, in particular, create strong economic disincentives for residents to work or seek higher paying jobs. The following reforms contained in the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act represent significant improvements in current public and assisted housing policies. First, the bill consolidates a multitude of programs into two flexible block grants to expand the eligible uses of funds and allow more creative and efficient use of resources. The bill also repeals a number of current programs that are obsolete, unused, or unfunded. Second, it institutes permanent rent reforms such as ceiling rents, earned income adjustments, and minimum rents that provide PHA's with the tools to develop rental policies that encourage and reward work and further the goal of creating mixed-income communities. The bill also removes the floor on rents that may be charged under the Brooke amendment, while assuring that poor families will not pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent. Third, the bill requires tough, swift action against PHA's with severe management deficiencies and provides HUD or court-appointed receivers with the necessary tools and powers to deal with troubled agencies and protect public housing residents. Fourth, it requires intervention with respect to severely distressed public housing developments that trap residents in deplorable living conditions and are costly to operate or maintain. It provides residents with alternative housing using vouchers or other available housing. Fifth, the bill permanently repeals the one-for-one replacement requirement and streamlines the demolition and disposition process to permit PHA's to demolish or sell vacant or obsolete public housing. Sixth, it gives PHA's broad flexibility to develop or participate with other providers of affordable housing in the development of mixed- income, mixed finance developments. Seventh, it repeals Federal preferences that have had the unintended consequence of concentrating the poorest of the poor in public housing developments and allows PHA's to operate according to locally established preferences consistent with local housing needs. The bill still maintains the requirement that most housing assistance be targeted to very low-income households. Eighth, the Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act calls on PHA's to increase coordination with State and local welfare agencies to ensure that welfare recipients living in public housing will have the full opportunity to move from welfare to work. Ninth, the bill provides residents with an active voice in developing the local PHA plans that will govern the operations and management of housing and for direct participation on housing authority boards of directors. It also authorizes funds for resident organizations to develop resident management and empowerment activities. Finally, it merges the Section 8 voucher and certificate programs into a single, choice-based program designed to operate more effectively in the private marketplace. It repeals requirements that are administratively burdensome to landlords, such as take-one, take- all, endless lease and 90-day termination notice requirements. These reforms will make participation in the section 8 tenant-based program more attractive to private landlords and increase housing choices for lower income families. The reforms contained in this legislation will significantly improve the nation's public housing and tenant-based rental assistance program and the lives of those who reside in Federally assisted housing. The funding flexibility, substantial deregulation of the day-to-day operations and policies of public authorities, encouragement of mixed- finance developments, policies to deal with distressed and troubled public housing, and rent reforms will change the face of public housing for PHA's, residents, and local communities. Reform of the public housing system has been and should remain a bipartisan effort. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues toward early passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding to me. The question has been asked many times during the day: Do you have the votes? There are 55 Republican Senators who have given their word that they would vote for a balanced budget constitutional amendment. There are a number of Democrats who have campaigned for this balanced budget amendment. If they keep their word, we will pass this constitutional amendment. What is to be gained as a result of doing this? The benefits are to our constituents. We believe that $125 a month could be the benefit derived from a constitutional amendment through lower interest rates, more affordable mortgage loans, more affordable student loans, cheaper automobile loans, and so forth. Mr. President, if we were to pass this constitutional amendment, we would finally put some kind of outside restraint on the ability of Congress to spend the taxpayers' dollars. We need to do that. We have failed 28 years in a row. It is time to get it done.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Rockefeller today as we introduce legislation to provide Medicare patients fighting cancer with coverage of benefits when they participate in approved clinical trials. Under current law, Medicare will not generally pay for the costs of patient care if they are participating in clinical trials. Beneficiaries are denied access to clinical trials of promising new therapies because Medicare deems these therapies experimental, and therefore not qualified for coverage. This means cancer patients who are Medicare beneficiaries essentially have two choices when they have exhausted all traditional cancer therapies--either pay the costs of participating in a clinical trial themselves, or go without additional treatment. For all but the most wealthy beneficiaries, it is too cost- prohibitive to take part in a clinical trial. Clinical trials are one of the most effective ways the Federal Government has of determining which treatments are most effective. Yet, researchers have told me they have difficulty accruing the required number of patients to participate in the trials they are conducting. Researchers have identified noncoverage by Medicare and private insurers as one of the primary reasons why patients do not participate in clinical trials. At a time when American researchers are making such tremendous progress in cancer genetics and cancer biology, it is essential that this knowledge be translated into new therapies through well-designed clinical trials. This legislation will help enhance our research efforts by facilitating broad patient participation in important cancer clinical trials. Our legislation is limited to only the highest-quality clinical trials. Only those trials which have undergone the rigors of peer- review will be considered. These include trials approved by the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, or organizations which are approved by the NIH, such as the American Cancer Society. Like most of my colleagues, I am very reluctant to introduce legislation to expand Medicare at a time when the report of the Board of Trustees of Social Security and Medicare clearly shows that Medicare is going broke. My support of such legislation is conditional upon the added benefit providing a clear and needed service at no significant cost to taxpayers. The legislation we introduce today does not add to Medicare's basic benefit package, but merely provides coverage for routine patient costs which Medicare is already obligated to reimburse when provided outside a clinical trial. Medicare will not be responsible for paying for research or new pharmaceutical products. In addition, Medicare beneficiaries will still be responsible for meeting deductibles and copayment requirements traditionally required by Medicare. Because these beneficiaries are cancer patients, they are already receiving, or will receive in the future, many of the medical services covered by this legislation. Finally, this is a true demonstration program. In 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must submit a report to Congress detailing any cost increases to the Medicare program and provide projects for future expenditures, if the program continues. Congress can then decide, based upon these data and any hearings which may take place, whether to enact legislation to make coverage of cancer clinical trials permanent. Therefore, I am convinced this legislation meets my two criteria for expanding Medicare. First, there is an indisputable urgent need for this benefit and, second, I believe it will not add significantly to the costs of the Medicare system. In fact, the information we learn from these clinical trials may provide us with more cost-effective means of treating cancer patients. As I have mentioned to my colleagues before, many members of my family have battled cancer. As a family, we have worked extensively with numerous cancer organizations. As a Senator, I have met with thousands of cancer patients throughout Florida and the rest of the United States. They have told me how important it is that patients themselves, not the Government, be responsible for making treatment decisions with their physicians. Patients desperately want to participate in clinical trials when traditional therapies are no longer beneficial. The legislation which Senator Rockefeller and I introduce today, which has the enthusiastic support of cancer patient, physician, nurse, and research organizations, will empower cancer patients with more treatment choices in a cost-effective manner. I want to commend Senator John Rockefeller for his leadership in bringing this issue to the forefront. Senator Rockefeller has always been there for cancer patients, as evidenced by his landmark 1993 legislation which provided Medicare coverage of anticancer drugs. We've worked together on cancer issues on several occasions over the years, and it's always a pleasure to work with him. Mr. President, our legislation would provide cancer patients who are Medicare participants with an additional choice at a time when a clinical trial may be their best, or only, hope for survival. I therefore urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Medicare Cancer Clinical Trial Program Coverage Act of 1997.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. If you want to take a few more minutes to finish your thought, fine. However I would like to have the opportunity to speak.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague for allowing me to take this time to address the Senate on the issue of the balanced budget amendment. I have spoken many times in the past years on this issue, both in the House and here in the Senate. I think it is a vital one. It is truly a debate about whether we are committed to the belief that the era of big Government is over. The reason there is such a debate about this issue is because it really is fundamental to that. Before I make some additional comments I think I might just make a statement or two with respect to the issue of Social Security. I represent the State of Florida, and therefore I think it is fair to say I am pretty sensitive to the retiree, the elderly vote in my State and their concerns about Social Security. I make the claim that probably the most significant way to protect Social Security is, in fact, to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. My feeling is that, in fact, it is a risky gimmick, I think, to be taking Social Security off budget. For that matter, I think it is to be proposing that a whole series of programs be taken off budget. We need to address the balanced budget constitutional amendment from the standpoint of all the expenditures, all the income and all the expenditures of the Federal Government, not separating them off into different accounts and considering only one group of expenditures at a time. Again, I think it is a risky gimmick to take Social Security off budget. Mr. President, over the last couple years I had the opportunity to read several books on the Constitution. One written by Catherine Drinker Bowen, and maybe this comes back to my mind after having watched the special on Thomas Jefferson that was on PBS last week. I thought it was a terrific 3-hour presentation and discussion about the roots of our Government, the roots of this Nation. Catherine Drinker Bowen's book, called ``Miracle at Philadelphia,'' was all about the debate about the establishment of the Constitution. I know that some have said, ``Well, the Constitution did not have a balanced budget amendment or a balanced budget requirement as part of it.'' Therefore, people would make the claim if they did not feel it was important then, and they were certainly some of the brightest minds we have ever experienced in Government, who are we to claim that there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution to address this issue, the need for a balance within our expenditures? I think that the people who make that claim fail to take into consideration how our Constitution has been amended over the years and the fact that the Senate used to be appointed. I believe it was either in 1912 or 1916--I have forgotten the specific date--when the Constitution was changed to require a direct vote on Members of the Senate. Well, there was an intricate balance that the writers of the Constitution came up with that was changed, with the result of the Senate being directly elected by the people. If you will remember, the fear that many had in those days was that the House, directly elected by the people, would be off pursuing many different ideas of great popular support, and that there needed to be some kind of restraint that would be placed on the people's House, and that would come from the Senate. Again, that has been changed. So some of the restraint was built into the system to be able to say, no, we don't think we ought to pursue that particular program or that particular expenditure. That was taken out as a result of the change in the direct election of Members of the U.S. Senate. I think it is fair to say that we ought to address the particular point that, today, there is a tendency to think of this debate as being a debate about economics. The reality is this is about human behavior and how we are going to control the desire on the part of some people to support all the different initiatives that might come from our constituents. So I think, from a constitutional perspective, one can say that the conditions have changed significantly, to the point where it is completely legitimate to be arguing today that we need an outside restraint on the ability of the Members of the Congress to spend our taxpayers' dollars. I have supported the constitutional amendment since I have entered Congress, which was back in 1982. I want to take just a moment or two to talk about the benefits that are derived. Again, all too often we find ourselves talking about some very intricate aspect of this debate, and we fail to address what I believe are the important benefits that come from a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, a requirement that we balance the budget. I believe, in the long term, we will end up with lower taxes, higher growth, more jobs, less Government, and lower interest rates. Again, lower interest rates can, I think, produce some very tangible benefits to our constituents. We have made estimates, for example, that lower interest rates would save the average family $125 a month. Now, some people might say that is not a great deal of money. I say to my colleagues, then go stand out in front of a grocery store and ask the individuals coming out whether they think an extra $125 a month is meaningful. I believe it is. We believe the way they can save that kind of money is, again, because of lower interest rates. Mortgage payments would be lower, automobile loans would be less expensive, student loans would be more affordable. That is a direct benefit that is passed on to our constituents. Again, I have a tendency to think at this time about the kinds of people that will be affected by what we do. I again ask my colleagues to consider the folks back home--the mother who might have two jobs who is being asked to support funding of all these various programs at the Federal level, the family where the husband and wife both work. In fact, I remember one particular individual coming up to me and explaining that he works all week and comes home and takes care of the children over the weekends while his wife works over the weekend. These are the kinds of people who we are asking to pay taxes to the Federal Government to fund the various programs. I can only think of one way we can finally put some restraint, again, on the Members' ability to spend their money, and that is to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. At this point, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, in 1993, the National Cancer Institute rescinded its recommendation that all women in their forties undergo mammography screening for breast cancer. Since then, American women have been receiving mixed messages about the importance of mammography. Women are confused. Women are angry. Women are frightened. Given the wide variety of recommendations being made about mammography screening for younger women, one can certainly understand why. The scientific community is deeply divided on the interpretation of data from mammography clinical trials conducted in the United States and elsewhere. Cancer advocacy organizations are split on the proper recommendations to give their members and the public. Physicians want to provide the best recommendations to their patients, but there is no single answer to give them. Insurance companies frequently deny coverage of benefits unless there is compelling scientific data to warrant coverage. Clearly, women want to be more involved in making health care decisions for themselves. But when the medical, scientific, and patient advocacy communities cannot agree on the issue of mammography screening, women are being placed in a situation where they must make, at best, an educated guess as to what they should do to protect themselves from a disease which will kill an estimated 44,000 women this year. Women and their families were hopeful they would get clear answers when the National Institutes of Health convened the Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49. Unfortunately, the Consensus Development Conference statement contains more mixed messages, more confusing data and few real answers. The report concludes, ``zero to 10 women would have their lives extended per 10,000 women ages 40-49 who are regularly screened. About 2,500 women should be screened regularly in order to extend one life.'' These two statements leave a great deal of room for interpretation by women, their physicians and their families. The report concludes, ``up to 25 percent of all breast cancer is not detected by mammogram in women ages 40-49.'' One could therefore logically conclude that 75 percent of all breast cancer is detected by mammography performed on women in this age group. To me, the fact that 75 percent of breast cancers will be detected through mammography is very significant. In addition, this conclusion also makes a compelling case for additional research to develop more sophisticated equipment which can detect breast cancer earlier than today's mammography technology can. The report also concludes that use of mammography has contributed to a growing trend that breast cancer tumors are being detected when they are small, and at an early stage. The report states that, ``the presence of smaller or earlier stage breast tumors can give a patient more choice in selecting among various treatment options.'' Research has shown that lumpectomy, combined with radiation therapy, is as effective as mastectomy when the tumor is detected early. One area all parties involved in this issue can agree upon is the need for additional research. I have introduced Senate Resolution 15, to express the sense of the Senate that funding for biomedical research activities of the National Institutes of Health should be doubled over the next 5 fiscal years. It is only through research that definitive answers to these very important research questions can be obtained. While I respect the conclusions of the consensus panel, I believe the message being sent to younger women throughout America is wrong. They are being told, in essence, that early detection of breast cancer may not be all that important. I believe most women reject that conclusion. On numerous occasions, I have spoken about how my own family has been affected by cancer. My wife and my mother are both survivors of breast cancer because it was detected at an early stage. It haunts me to think what might have happened if they had received the message that women are currently receiving with this report. I support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I believe it is important that the Senate send the message that more research is needed to further determine the benefits of mammography screening in younger women, that the National Cancer Institute should reconsider its mammography screening guidelines, and to encourage the public to consider cancer screening guidelines issued by other organizations. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I will take just a couple of minutes to explain this resolution and also the motivation, if you will. The Senate resolution calls for doubling the investment in medical research at the National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years. There are many, many motivations for doing this. As most of my colleagues know, both my wife and I are survivors of cancer, Priscilla with breast cancer; I am a melanoma survivor. In my quest to gain more knowledge about the various weapons that might be at our disposal to fight this disease and to hope that someday we can find a series of cures. I have also had the opportunity to listen to research scientist in many different areas, many different diseases, whether that be Parkinson's disease, whether that be diabetes, whether that be in spinal cord injuries, in the area of cancer, prostate, breast cancer, melanoma, and so forth. There was a hearing held at the end of the last Congress by now retired Senator Mark Hatfield and Senator Bill Cohen. There were a number of individuals who testified at that hearing and made, I thought, a remarkable case about why it was no longer acceptable for the Congress of the United States, for the Federal Government to continue a kind of business-as-usual attitude with respect to medical research, biomedical research. One of the individuals who spoke to us, Joan Samuelson, speaking about Parkinson's disease, said: The current Federal policy on Parkinson's wastes billions in public and private dollars coping with its effects, when millions could simply cure it. I remember vividly the testimony of Travis Roy, a young man who today is a quadriplegic, the result of an injury during an ice hockey game. Part of his testimony was that he dreams in essence for the day when he can hug his mother again. Now, if that statement had been made before a hearing of the Congress 20, 25, 30 years ago, the response pretty much would have been that we all certainly could understand the hurt that this individual and this family has experienced. Most of us probably would have concluded, well, but there is nothing that we can do. To put more money into research of a problem we all know; we can remember those stories about spinal cord injuries years ago--there is no way to find a cure. The reality is in America today, this Nation happens to believe that in all areas, or in so many different areas of diseases we are on the verge of discovering many cures, that we can no longer take this attitude of business as usual, and that if we make the investment in research we can in fact find ways to solve these problems, and to find cures, and, most importantly, to offer hope to our loved ones. So I have introduced S. 15. I know there will be people, for example, who will say, ``Well, Senator, you are taking about spending more money.'' Yes, I am talking about spending more money, but it is an area in which I believe the Federal Government should be more active, and I believe it is an area where we will get a major return for it. In response to a question just recently about budget matters, my reaction was stop and calculate what we have saved as a Nation as a result of finding the cure for polio. In my view, there is no reason why we cannot today operate from the perspective that there are cures out there if we could just provide the resources to our research scientists around this Nation. I am confident we can succeed, and I must say, Mr. President, I stand here today filled with joy, with the recognition that so many of my colleagues feel the same as I. I am confident again, if we make this investment, we can offer great hope to so many millions of Americans. I thank the Chair.