Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify a provision included in the credit reporting section of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. Section 2403(a) clarifies existing law with respect to the ``permissible purposes'' for which a consumer report may be obtained under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The provision establishes that purchasers and servicers are permitted to review a borrower's credit report in connection with the decision of whether to purchase a loan obligation and/or its servicing. This allows a purchaser or other investor to value more accurately a portfolio of loans based on the current credit characteristics of the borrowers of the underlying obligations. Servicers can also use the information to better value servicing rights that they are considering purchasing. In addition, the provision would allow a current loan insurer to use credit reports in assessing its existing risk. By reducing uncertainty in the secondary markets, I am hopeful that consumers will be well served by lower prices. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to elaborate upon this small provision.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, only 270 days of freedom remain for the people of Hong Kong unless the principles of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong are upheld and enforced. Although Governor Chris Patton proclaimed yesterday his intention not to go quietly from his post as last Governor of Hong Kong, his stated goals do not go far enough. Martin Lee, Hong Kong's Democratic Party leader, correctly identified Patton's shortcomings on behalf of those who will remain after Beijing takes control of the colony next July. Governor Patton proclaimed yesterday that he intended to accomplish many things during his remaining time in Hong Kong, but his proposed actions fall short of what is required. We see former Communist states all over the world transitioning to free market economies and forms of democratic governance. The United States and our friends and allies are investing a great deal of effort to aid and assist these transitions. We cannot turn our backs on the only instance of a successful and shining free market democracy transitioning to the darkness of communism. I fear that this will happen on midnight of June 30, 1997. The world must insist upon implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong signed in 1984. And then the world must ensure Beijing upholds their agreement. Neither Beijing nor London should back down from this agreement now. I commend Mr. Patton for his good work on freedom, stability, and prosperity during his tenure as Governor. He has pursued reforms while facing resistance and indeed intimidation from Beijing. But he has been forced to compromise in order to maintain his relationship with Beijing. The price of this compromise is too great. I must support Hong Kong's Democratic Party leader Martin Lee, who yesterday called on Patton to do more. I also call on the Government in London to do more. The people of Hong Kong should be asked to accept nothing less. The Joint Declaration of 1984 is an international treaty registered in the United Nations. A violation of this treaty by either party represents a violation of international law. London must hold Beijing to the terms of this treaty for the benefit of the people of Hong Kong. In assessing the situation today, we have Patton's speech and Beijing's promises, but we must focus not on words, but actions. I am primarily concerned with actions taken by Beijing that undermine the promises made in the Joint Declaration. These include: harassing journalists by Beijing such as Hong Kong reporter Xi Yang; threatening to replace the democratically elected legislative council with an appointed provisional legislature; proposing to repeal Hong Kong's Bill of Rights; and assigning power of judicial interpretation to the national People's Congress rather than Hong Kong's courts. The United States must strongly urge Beijing to grant Hong Kong the level of autonomy promised in the Joint Declaration. United States policy must acknowledge the Joint Declaration as an international treaty possessing the force of law. It is a matter of international law that the parties to the treaty abide by their solemn obligations undertaken in the Joint Declaration. The United Kingdom should make a determination as to whether China's plans to replace the legislative council are a violation of the Joint Declaration. But even if London fails in this responsibility, the United States cannot sit idly by when, by anyone's reasonable interpretation, China violates its international treaty obligations, especially when the stakes are as high as they are with Hong Kong. Over the next 9 months, I intend to continue to raise the level of attention of the Hong Kong transition. The principles at stake touch the core of the minimum standard of freedom upon which we must insist.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as we complete our business in the Senate today, I rise to note with interest the support the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate gave to the trauma reduction initiative under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. On page H11848 of the September 28, 1996 Congressional Record, the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Appropriation subcommittee members of the House and Senate urge the Bureau of Justice Assistance to favorably consider funding the initiative. As you may know, the trauma reduction project was developed by Cooper Hospital/University Medical of Camden, NJ, and NOVA Southeastern University of Fort Lauderdale, FL, to respond to and prevent violence and crime in our neighborhoods. What makes this initiative unique is the joining of therapeutic and alternative dispute resolution methods to train personnel who intervene most often in violent or even chronic abuse situations. I look forward to working with my colleagues from New Jersey and the Department of Justice to make this proposal a reality. Not only will it assist immediate victims of abuse and crime, but it will contribute to reduce the spiral of crime and violence which plagues our neighborhoods and burdens our health care system.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada stated, H.R. 3219 includes language to specifically require the allocation formula will provide for the continuing operation and modernization needs of existing housing units. This provision is to hold harmless all native American housing authorities or tribes from unanticipated consequences of a new formula, while the tribes are guaranteed the opportunity to participate in determining the funding allocation through negotiated rulemaking with HUD. If a technical correction is needed to ensure that small tribes and Indian housing authorities are held harmless during this negotiated rulemaking process, I will work with the Senator from Nevada to seek such correction early in the next Congress.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my colleagues will remember that in 1992, Hurricane Andrew, one of the worst natural disasters in our Nation's history, struck the city of Homestead and South Dade County, FL with terrible flurry. Today, 4 years later, the physical devastation to the community can still be seen. The residents of the area continue to experience severe economic hardship due to the destruction of homes and businesses, the loss of income and tax revenue, and the dislocation of residents. I dare say that there are few places in the country that deserve economic development assistance more than Homestead/South Dade. In recent years, the city of Homestead has brought forward a public/ private partnership project which promises to become a significant economic development engine for the community. The project is a 60,000 square foot motor sports exhibition and education facility to be located at the existing South Dade/Homestead Motorsports Complex. This project is expected to attract more than half a million visitors per year, generate considerable tax revenue, and create hundreds of new jobs. The city of Homestead will shortly approach the Economic Development Administration to request an economic development assistance grant which will be matched equally by State and private contributions. Mr. President, I strongly support this project which I believe will build upon the economic development success of the Motorsports Complex. This hard-hit community is doing the right thing in putting together public-private partnerships to share the cost burden of such economic development projects. The proposal to EDA for fiscal year 1997 funds deserves favorable consideration, and I am hopeful that the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee will lend his support, as well, to this worthy project.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alaska for his interest in this matter. I would like to elaborate further on what I have been informed is the minimum capability required to meet the needs of the users identified by the BRAC. It is my understanding that this should include fully instrumented, fully capable threat systems/simulators for the SADS-IIR, SADS-III, SADS-IVR, SADS-V, SADS-VIR, SADS-VIIIR, SADS-XI, SADS-XII, WEST-XR, WEST-XI, and flycatcher threats. Additional technique generators, target signature generators, environment generators, on- site data processing, and site support facilities are required at Eglin range sites in order to optimize the development of mission data required to support current and future worldwide operations of U.S. forces. Moreover, I am told that much of the instrumentation and support facilities identified herein exist today and are designed to provide the flexibility needed for characterizing future threat systems as they are identified and become available. I have been informed that upgrades to these capabilities are the most cost-efficient approach to addressing future requirements and consistent with the BRAC decision. The funding provided by the Congress allows for the maintenance and improvement of those systems most critical for electronic combat training. I appreciate the support of the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in providing this funding and look forward to continuing to work with him on this matter in the coming year.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy concerning an economic development project of great significance to South Dade County, FL.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, for some time now I have been following the Department of Defense's plans relative to electronic combat testing. Last year, I engaged in a colloquy with the good Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, to clarify the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee's intention in their request that DOD provide Congress with an electronic combat master plan. At that time, I believe we made it perfectly clear that the master plan should provide optimum asset utilization. Given this background, I am sure you can understand my surprise and dismay earlier this year when a report came back to the Congress which did not contain so much as one dollar sign. Again, I say there was absolutely no reference to any cost analysis supporting the Department's recommendations in their master plan. Since DOD was apparently unwilling or unable to provide any justification for their recommendations, I asked the GAO to review DOD's electronic combat testing and their master plan. After learning of the preliminary results of a now nearly complete GAO investigation, I understand why DOD failed to include in their master plan any justification for their recommendations. Simply put, there does not appear to be any mission or cost justification to support DOD's recommendations. Indeed, preliminary reports from the GAO investigation indicate that the master plan would result in substantially increased costs, while providing diminished capabilities. Given this background, I am sure you can understand my concern over one of the recommendations in this master plan to move test and evaluation activities from Eglin, AFC, located in northwest Florida. This feeling is exacerbated by the fact that nearly 2 years before the issuance of this master plan, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission [BRAC] recognized previous DOD findings which ranked Eglin, AFB as highest military value of all the DOD electronic combat [EC] ranges. Accordingly, the BRAC provided that selected EC capabilities at Eglin, AFB be sustained ``to support Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), the USAF Air Warfare Center, and Air Force Material Command Armaments/Weapons Test and Evaluation activities. . .'' Unfortunately, it appears DOD's electronic combat master plan demonstrates that the Air Force, with the tacit endorsement of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, fully intends to dismiss the direction of the BRAC. To address concerns about DOD's actions on this matter, the Congress has provided funding in the fiscal year 1997 Defense appropriations bill to insure that Eglin, AFB range capabilities are adequate to comply with the BRAC intent to sustain selected EC capabilities to meet present and future requirements of AFSOC testing and training, AWC electronic combat testing, and AFMC testing and evaluation. I ask the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, his intentions with respect to the funding provided.

Mr. MACK. Because my good friend from Utah is our resident expert on stored value products, and in fact is responsible for the much needed study on these products, as well as a 9 month delay in Federal Reserve Board rulemaking on these products in this bill, I wanted to ask him a question about his intent with respect to these two provisions. Was it ever your intent to interfere with the Federal Reserve Board's proposed revisions to Regulation E with respect to electronic communication of Regulation E required disclosures, and the Fed's revised rules regarding error resolution for new accounts?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, section 2241 in title II of H.R. 4278, the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 that is before us today, contains a technical drafting error that could have an unintended detrimental effect on foreign banks. Inadvertently, section 2241 as currently drafted may delete the Comptroller of Currency's current authority in 12 U.S.C. 72 to waive the citizenship requirements for directors of national banks if a bank is a foreign bank affiliate. Under current law that has been in effect since the International Banking Act of 1978 was enacted, the Comptroller has had the authority to waive the citizenship requirement for up to a minority of national bank directors if the bank is a subsidiary or affiliate of a foreign bank. Section 2241 could be read to inadvertently repeal that longstanding authority. Section 2241 was intended to expand the Comptroller's authority to waive requirements for national bank directors and was not intended to repeal existing authority to waive citizenship requirements. I hope legislation correcting this error will be introduced and passed in the next Congress but, in the mean time, the OCC should treat the citizenship waiver authority as continuing in effect and should not do anything that would require foreign bank subsidiaries or affiliates to restructure their boards.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address a situation resulting from the Department of Education's interpretation of section 435 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 [HEA] which has adversely impacted many schools in Florida and across the country. In 1990, Congress amended the act to prohibit institutions from continuing their participation in the Federal Family Education Loan [FFEL] Program if their cohort default rate is equal to or above the threshold percentage for the 3 consecutive years ``for which data is available.'' Along similar lines, this year Congress passed additional legislation which required that any school terminated from the FFEL program will no longer be eligible to receive Pell Grants for its students. However, the Department of Education has taken the position that this law will be enforced using default rate data for years 1991, 1992, and 1993. Schools have already received their prepublished 1994 rates, many which are below the current threshold requirement, and some are even half of what they were in years prior. Despite this achievement, the Department has terminated or is currently terminating schools based on their 1991, 1992, and 1993 rate--not on their 1994 rate--because the Department does not consider the 1994 rate to be ``available'' until it is published. Based upon their technicality, the Department is essentially punishing schools which have implemented costly default management programs and achieved the desired result of the law-- reducing their cohort default rate. Mr. President, the intent of this law was for schools to educate their students about the importance of repaying their loans, and established a 3-year period within which a school must take proper measures to reduce its cohort default rate. It is perfectly acceptable for Congress to enact legislation to protect taxpayers from the costs associated with high default rates, and current law does so by requiring those involved in the Federal student loan process to educate students about the importance of repayment. However, I do not believe that Congress intended for schools which have reduced their default rate to be terminated from these programs. Given this late hour, it is unlikely that legislation addressing this situation will be enacted prior to the close of the 104th Congress. Therefore, I ask the Department to do everything in its power to use the most recent data when evaluating the eligibility status of these institutions. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act and, in particular, the provision in the bill relating to the restoration of Florida's Everglades. I want to especially thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Chafee. The Senator from Rhode Island clearly understands the unique nature of the Everglades problem and, on behalf of all Floridians, I extend my appreciation for his efforts on behalf of this legislation. It is no secret, Mr. President, that the Everglades are a resource unique and precious to all Americans. This ``river of grass''-- extending from the Kissimmee chain of lakes through to Florida Bay and the Florida Keys--is the primary source of south Florida's drinking water, critical to our cultural heritage and essential to our continued economic well-being. As the Everglades go, Mr. President, so goes south Florida. How best to craft a balance between the urban, agricultural, and environmental interests presents one of the greatest challenges facing this generation of Floridians. This Congress has already demonstrated its unwavering commitment to this resource by appropriating $200 million in direct funding for Everglades restoration during consideration of the farm bill earlier this year. This move represents the single-largest funding commitment to the Everglades in history and is indicative of the interest this Congress has in ensuring that this important resource is passed on to future generations. It has not always been so. In an effort to provide flood control for the rapidly-growing region, Congress in 1948 authorized the massive central and southern Florida project. The goal of this effort was to drain the swamp through a series of canals extending from Lake Okeechobee to the sea. The result was thousands of acres opened to agriculture and development and an unprecedented economic expansion in the region. This was not, however, without a significant cost. The reallocation of water resulting from the project disrupted the natural hydroperiod of the Everglades. Wildlife populations plummeted and fresh water flows were diminished. Critical resources like Florida Bay--a once-vibrant body of water that sustained both a healthy environment and a strong coastal economy--began to wither on the vine. As Florida's coastal communities felt the effect of this harm, an effort began to rethink the project and how it relates to the new realities in south Florida. In 1992, Mr. President, Congress directed the Army Corps of Engineers to perform a Comprehensive Review Study--restudy--of the C&SF project with an eye toward capturing the millions of acre-feet of fresh water currently being lost to tide every year and reallocating this resource within the south Florida ecosystem. This restudy presents the opportunity to integrate scientifically sound environmental restoration into the mix of priorities in south Florida in a balanced, equitable, and responsible manner. Due to the complexity of this task and the difficulty coming to consensus on solutions, it began to appear that this restudy would last at least several years into the next century. This, Mr. President, was simply unacceptable. The citizens and water users in south Florida have a legitimate interest in knowing the specifics of the restoration effort sooner rather than later. The Congress has a legitimate interest in knowing how much all of this is going to cost the Federal Government. And the State of Florida--which has committed to become a 50/50 partner with the Federal Government in this effort--has a legitimate interest in knowing the size and duration of its commitment to Everglades restoration. In fact, the State of Florida recognized the need for balance and consensus several years ago. The Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida--an ad-hoc coalition of 46 interest groups and governmental entities across the spectrum in south Florida--was created to seek out restoration goals and projects which everyone agreed would accelerate the restoration without harming the various water users. The commission recently unanimously approved a remarkable document which details 40 specific projects. This blueprint will increase the pace of restoration while taking into account the water- related needs of all parties in the region. The corps has indicated that if it were able to work from this consensus document, it could come to closure on the restudy within 3 years. Thus began, Mr. President, our efforts this year. After much negotiation and effort, my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham and I were able to arrive at the package we are considering today. Specifically, Mr. President, the legislation before us requires the corps to submit a comprehensive plan for restoration of the Everglades by July 1, 1999. This plan will include a list of specific projects for authorization by Congress and will include the necessary engineering and design. Clearly, this will require a monumental effort by the corps as it works to complete its work by this deadline. We have been repeatedly assured by the corps that it can be done without shortcutting necessary engineering and planning. The legislation further contains $75 million in authority for the Corps of Engineers to construct projects deemed critical to the restoration effort. The report language accompanying this bill indicates five projects which ought to be top priority for the corps as it exercises this authority. These projects are universally accepted in south Florida as projects which can be carried out within the next 3 years and which will significantly accelerate the restoration effort. Lastly, Mr. President, this bill establishes in law the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. This is an intergovernmental body which includes representatives from the Federal Government, State and local entities and the two Indian tribes present in the Everglades. The task force is based largely on the successful arrangement currently operating in south Florida and will provide a forum for exchanging information, taking public comment and input, and coordinating the overall restoration effort. Mr. President, we believe this package represents a significant step forward in the continuing effort to restore the Everglades and provide a sustainable economy for all the residents of south Florida. I again express my sincere appreciation to Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus-- and the Environment Committee staff--for their outstanding support and leadership on this effort. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, every day Americans are exposed to much of what is wrong with America and not enough about what is good and right across our Nation and in our communities. It is in that light that I rise today to speak about a young man in Florida whose compassion and humanity should serve as a reminder to all of us that there is much about America that is good and right--12 year old Jeremy Marks-Peltz of Kendall, FL. Last year Jeremy was on a boat tour in south Florida and saw the unfortunate plight of homeless people living in cardboard boxes. He decided he wanted to help them, and began organizing a food, clothes and furniture drive for some of south Florida's homeless charities. Jeremy went to Bloomingdale's in Miami seeking assistance for his charity drive; they decided to help. Bloomingdale's recently wrote me about Jeremy's efforts and why they got involved. We receive hundreds of requests from charities for donations through letters, but this was the first time I was face to face with a twelve year old boy wanting to help the needy. It was touching and in a society that some times only remembers the needy during the holidays, it was refreshing. With Bloomingdale's assistance. Jeremy's desire to make a difference in his community has resulted in a full-scale campaign called, Making a World of Difference, which will run through the year. The campaign, which began in February, consists of an appeal to all of Bloomingdale's customers for donations for the needy, including food, clothing and furniture. Over the years I have said many times that individuals must play a greater role in the fight to make our communities safer, more prosperous, and simply better places for all of us to live. Jeremy's work to make south Florida a better place for all its residents to live exemplifies that ideal. John Randolph once wrote, ``Life is not so important as the duties of life.'' Only 12 years old, Jeremy Marks-Peltz has already learned this lesson well. His compassion, commitment, and understanding of what is genuinely important in this world are truly shining examples for all of us.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond, for incorporating report language clarifying that Congress does not intend for the Fair Housing Act to apply to property insurance. HUD's assertion of authority over the conduct of the property insurance market overreaches, and in fact contradicts, congressional intent as reflected in the plain language and legislative history of the Fair Housing Act. HUD's attempt to regulate the business of insurance, notwithstanding the lack of any reference to property insurance in the Fair Housing Act or its legislative history, also contradicts the statutory mandate of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which requires that, unless a Federal law ``specifically relates to the business of insurance,'' that law shall not apply where it would ``invalidate, impair or supersede'' State law. HUD's assumption of authority to regulate property insurance has the practical effect of invalidating, impairing and superseding the State laws which prohibit unfair discrimination by insurers, and it is the type of duplicative regulation which Congress sought to avoid through McCarran-Ferguson. We should not tolerate illegal discriminatory practices by anyone involved in the real estate market. However, every State provides recourse for addressing complaints of unfair discrimination by insurers. There is no need for HUD, which currently has difficulty meeting its statutory mandates, to step into the shoes of State regulators to create a Federal regulatory regime without clear justification or authority.

Mr. MACK. Thank you again for your work and dedication to this issue and for considering the views of the authorizing committee in the demonstration program.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Bond for addressing the expiration of thousands of section 8 housing assistance contracts by including a FHA multifamily demonstration program in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. This demonstration program incorporates many of the major principles of S. 2042, the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1996, which I introduced last month along with Senators Bond, D'Amato, and Bennett. However, the success of the demonstration program depends on HUD's implementation. I would like to ask Senator Bond a few questions to clarify the intent of the legislation. First, the demonstration program would allow the Secretary to use nonprofit entities as ``designees'' to carry out the functions and responsibilities of portfolio restructuring. Athough I believe that there are legitimate and qualified nonprofits who could be used as restructuring entities, I am concerned about the use of nonprofits that do not have the support of the local community or residents. How does the demonstration program address ``sham'' nonprofits?

Mr. MACK. My second concern is about the Department's capacity to restructure up to 50,000 units in the demonstration program. Numerous studies by the HUD IG and GAO and statements by HUD officials themselves have indicated that there are serious capacity problems in the multifamily housing area at HUD. HUD's response to these problems is to liquidate the inventory through sales of HUD-held and guaranteed mortgages to Wall Street investors. S. 2042, however, would protect the Federal Government's affordable housing investment by transferring the portfolio management responsibilities to publicly accountable entities such as State and local housing finance agencies. How does the demonstration program address these issues?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. That should be plenty of time. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to lay the groundwork about why it is important that the Dole-Kemp economic plan be embraced by the Nation and eventually passed into law. There are two points that I want to talk about. One has to do with the growth of the economy, and the other has to do with the tax relief that is really needed for the American family. But I want to start from a premise that the discussion here really is motivated by the opportunity over the years to talk to people in my State about the burden that they feel the Government has imposed on them in the form of taxes. They believe that there is too much Washington interference in their lives, that Washington spends too much, that Washington wastes too much of the money, that Washington taxes them too much, and that they really want Washington off their backs. You have to think about the perspective that they have. If you stop and think about individuals that you know, or individuals that you have met when you have been out to town meetings, or wherever, that have told you stories about their lives, then it becomes real. It becomes something other than a debate about economics. It becomes something other than a debate about Democrats versus Republicans, or conservatives versus liberals. It becomes a debate about what is in their best interest, about what we can do, in essence, to allow America's families to become stronger. As America's families become stronger, the Nation becomes stronger as well. So the kind of people who I think about are those individuals who come to me and tell me that both husband and wife are working and that they are working long, long hours; that they get up before sunrise, and they probably don't get back to their home until after the sun has set. They get up on Tuesday and do it over again; on Wednesday and do it over again; on Thursday and do it over again; and on Friday and do it over again. Some do it on Saturdays. I know of a family where the husband works two jobs during the week, goes home Friday night, and the wife begins work for the weekend. He takes care of the children over the weekend, and she works over the weekend. Those are the kinds of people that I am talking about that are paying--as the Senator from Georgia indicated--almost 40 percent of their earnings in taxes. That is, when they pick up their paycheck at the end of the week, or every 2 weeks, or at the end of the month, like everybody else, they immediately look at the deductions. ``How much is being taken out of my pay?'' That number is getting larger and larger every year. What it means is that they are having to work longer and longer. In fact, I think the tax freedom day is now occurring sometime in May. For those who do not know what tax freedom day is, tax freedom day is the day, when it arrives, where you no longer have to be working to pay your taxes. Everything from that day forward is free of taxes. You paid for the Government in Washington, the government in Tallahassee, or the government in Lee County, or whatever it might happen to be. That tax freedom day is taking each of us individually longer and longer and longer through each year to get to the point where the worker actually is doing it for their families--to be able to see that our children have an opportunity for a better education, that they are better clothed, that their housing is in better condition. In fact, that brings to mind one of the things that the Dole-Kemp folks are talking about--that today in America the typical family in America is paying more in taxes to Washington, to Tallahassee, to Lee County, Fort Myers--more in taxes than they are spending on food, clothing, and shelter. There is just something fundamentally wrong when government has gotten to that size. Again, without getting into the debate about liberal versus conservative, I think when people pick up those paychecks and look to see what their deductions are, they are realizing that they are paying for a government, frankly, that they believe is wasting their money. So it is from that premise that I make these remarks. Again, two points: There is economic growth and the burden of taxes on the American family. There are those who are going to say, ``Connie, you know, you are going to be talking about weak economic growth in the country, but President Clinton has told us that this is the strongest economic growth in three decades, I think.'' That is just fundamentally wrong. Yes, we had a good month or a good quarter last quarter. I am delighted about that. We saw the unemployment rate drop, and we saw the growth rate in the country go to 4.8 percent. That is good. But the problem is that every economist, that I am aware of anyway--or I should probably should say almost all economists are predicting that the growth rate in the economy is going to slow down again. The year 1997 is projected by the Federal Reserve, I believe, which is saying 1.75 to 2.25 for 1997. The administration's own forecast is 2.3. Again, let me put into context where we have been with the Clinton administration. The average growth in the economy now during the Clinton administration is 2.35 percent. How does that compare with other periods of time? For the 10 years preceding President Clinton, the average growth was 3.2 percent; the year immediately preceding President Clinton, 3.7 percent. The five economic expansions since World War II, 4.4 percent. If you take every year since the end of World War II, it is 3.2 percent. I mean the economy is moving along at a snail's pace. What does that mean to that family I was referring to a minute ago? It means the loss of production in the country that amounts to about $308 billion. If you convert that into what that means to the family, if we had been growing, let us say, at the average of 3.2 over these last 3\1/2\ years compared to what we have been, the average family in America would be $3,116 better off; $260 a month better off as a result. Some of the other statistics that I have developed: The typical household income is about $1,000 less than the average of the decade before President Clinton. Real hourly wages and real weekly wages are both lower now than they were in 1992. After-tax incomes are growing at about roughly half the rate prior to President Clinton. They are growing at a rate now of about 1.8 percent compared to the decade before President Clinton of 3.2 percent. Median family income has declined 4 out of the last 5 years. As I said a moment ago, families are paying more in taxes than they are for food, clothing, and shelter. The Dole-Kemp--I think it is important that people focus on it as an economic plan, not just as a tax plan, but an economic plan--has a number of components to it. One is the requirements to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment which would make it a constitutional requirement that we balance the budget. What does that mean? Let us say that the critics are right, that the growth, the return, if you will, the recapture that comes as a result of the lower tax rates is not 27 percent but 20 percent. That means we are going to have to find more spending to make the reductions or we are going to have to put off some tax relief for the American family. I happen to believe that we can do the 15-percent reduction in marginal tax rates and that we can give a $500 per child tax credit and still meet that goal. So, No. 1, balance the budget, constitutional amendment, a balanced budget plan to balance the budget by the year 2002. The second component--I think the first most important--reduce the taxes, a 15 percent reduction in the marginal tax rate. I would ask people to focus on the marginal tax rate. What we are saying to individuals with these lower rates is you get to keep more of what you save, earn, invest, work for. You get to keep more of it. Most people believe that if you get to keep more of what you are earning, you are more inclined to try to figure out ways to earn more because you get to keep more of it. In addition to that, the plan calls for a cutting in half of the capital gains tax rate. I know there are people who say this is just nothing but a giveaway to the wealthy. I adamantly disagree with that. I think there is statistical data which indicates that is not an accurate statement. The issue here is about America's future. Are we going to have the capital necessary to invest in the new technologies of the 21st century? I give a little bit different perspective. Think of capital gains taxes as a wall that has been built around old investment. If that wall is too high, you are not going to be able to get that capital to move from the old investments to the new investments because people are going to say the rate on that tax is too high; I just will not sell the asset. If it is not sold, A, there is no revenue to the Federal Government and, B, there is no ability to transfer that capital from the old technologies into the technologies of the future. So I think they are right on target in saying we need to find a way to allow this capital to flow. Third, it is time that we gave American families, middle-income America, a break; that we say to them, yes, there is something in this for them in the sense if we are going to reduce the size, the scope and the involvement of Washington, DC, clearly there ought to be a benefit to the taxpayer and we think that that benefit ought to be directed more at the low income, at the families of America, and that happens as a result of a $500 per child tax cut. The next element of the plan is to look at areas like litigation and regulation. We all know that the area of too much legal attack on business today has slowed down and reduced our productivity. So we believe that we have to make changes with respect to regulation and litigation. Equally important, Senator Dole and Jack Kemp have pointed out the importance of education and training. If we do those combinations of things, balancing the budget, reducing the tax burden, providing opportunities for education, training, and changing the laws with respect to litigation and regulation, we can get this economy moving again. I for one--and I think the American people--believe that accepting the notion that this country can only grow at 2.5 percent is a tragedy. We are taking away the opportunities for American families and for our children. The last point I mention is that I believe President Clinton's economic policies are robbing America and our families and our children of their economic future, and we have to change that. I thank the Chair. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to make the Senate--and particularly the chairman of the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee--aware of the Sweetwater Branch project. This project is most important to the citizens of Florida and I believe it merits attention by the Senate. Mr. President, the Sweetwater Basin begins north of Gainesville, FL, runs through the city and discharges into Paynes Prairie--a critical natural resource area owned by the State of Florida and home to many important species of plants and animals. This water ultimately makes its way through the Alachua Sink--a large sinkhole in the area--into the Floridan aquifer. The aquifer is a primary source of drinking water for Florida's citizens and its health is critical to our quality of life. The city has brought together the State, Alachua County, and other interested parties in an effort to ensure that these discharges into the Prairie and the aquifer are not contaminated with agricultural and urban runoff. The city is to be commended for its diligence in working toward a solution. The project of cleaning up this water, however, is beyond the scope--both geographically and financially--of the city of Gainesville. While it has prepared to plan that would mitigate this problem at a relatively low cost, the city needs help on the funding and implementation. Thus, it is important--in my view--that this project be made eligible for Federal assistance. I am hopeful the chairman of the subcommittee will work with us on securing the necessary funding to assist the city of Gainesville in this most important effort.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senator Bond for his interest in moving forward the process for restructuring the FHA- insured and assisted multifamily mortgage portfolio. I know that the Senator believes his amendment is not a substitute for a permanent debt restructuring proposal. I want to make it clear that the authorizing committee fully intends to move forward with portfolio restructuring legislation that can be enacted before the end of this Congress. Immediately before the recess, I introduced S. 2042, the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1996. This comprehensive multifamily mortgage portfolio restructuring proposal; will deal with expiring contracts on units with rents that exceed fair market rents by reducing those rents to market levels and providing a process for restructuring the underlying FHA mortgages. I am pleased that Senator Bond has cosponsored this legislation. The Housing Subcommittee of the Banking Committee has long been concerned that flaws in the HUD multifamily insurance and rental assistance programs have allowed owners to receive more federal dollars in rental assistance than necessary to maintain properties as decent and affordable housing. Such a policy is not fair to the American taxpayer, and it cannot be sustained in the current budget environment. Without changes in current policies, the cost of renewing expiring project-based section 8 contracts will grow from $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1997 to almost $4 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $8 billion 10 years from now. However, if these contracts are not renewed, residents and communities will be adversely affected and most of the FHA-insured mortgages--with an unpaid balance of $18 billion--will default and result in claims on the FHA insurance fund. This proposal would establish an orderly and well-understood mechanism for reducing section 8 rents and restructuring mortgage debt with or without FHA mortgage insurance. It would utilize capable public entities, like State housing finance agencies, to restructure the portfolio; require input from residents and communities; and treat good owners and managers of multifamily properties fairly. I believe our bill will have broad-based support that reflects the interests of all of the stakeholders in the process, and we intend to move it forward. I look forward to working with Senator Bond to develop a sound long term strategy for section 8 contract renewals.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for the chairman's support of my efforts in coordination with Senators Graham, Lieberman, and Dodd to clarify the EPA's authority to obligate funds to assist State and local governments in implementing comprehensive conservation and management plans prepared through the National Estuary Program. It is important that we do this so that the knowledge we have gained since the program's inception is not lost for lack of the Federal Government being able to contribute its fair share for implementation activities. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to your attention the committee report which expresses its support for the administration's request for, among other EPA programs, the National Estuary Program, and of particular interest to me, ``full funding of the Sarasota Bay project.'' As the Chairman knows, the administration's request for the NEP is not adequate to support a full implementation effort and I would ask for your confirmation of the subcommittee's intent that EPA make every effort to make funds available from other programs to supplement its budget request for the NEP to support CCMP implementation efforts such as the Sarasota Bay project.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the subcommittee has generously funded several alternative water source projects in west central Florida in the last two EPA budgets. These funds have provided critical support to assist with the development of new technologies and applications to help ensure that the fastest growing State in the country will be able to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for water for potable, agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. The subcommittee's support for these programs has been greatly appreciated as Senator Graham and I have been working with our colleagues in both the Senate and the House to establish an authorized program for Florida and other Eastern States to assist with the development of alternative water sources similar to those currently available to most of the Western States through the Bureau of Reclamation. Although the subcommittee was not able to make any funds available during fiscal year 1997 for the projects in Florida, I want to thank the chairman for his past support and look forward to working with him to address this important concern in next year's appropriations bill for EPA.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the conference report is an appropriation of $2,165,000,000, for the legislative branch for fiscal year 1997. This is a reduction of $22 million below the enacted program levels in fiscal year 1996, $174 million below the requested amount, and, compared to fiscal 1995 the bill reflects a $225 million reduction. Mr. President, I thank the members of the committee, and especially our ranking member, Senator Murray for her help and cooperation in producing this legislation.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of Senator D'Amato, Bond, and Bennett, the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1996. 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 maintaining the affordability and availability of decent and safe rental housing. 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 assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] project-based Section 8 programs. In addition, tax incentives for the development of low-income housing were provided through the tax code until 1986. The combination of these financial incentives resulted in the creation of thousands of decent, safe, and affordable housing properties but, at a great cost to the American taxpayer. Flaws in the Section 8 rental assistance program allowed owners to receive more Federal dollars in rental subsidy than was necessary to maintain properties as decent and affordable rental housing. A recent HUD study found that almost two-thirds of assisted properties have contract rents greater than comparable market rents. 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, and it cannot be sustained in the current budget environment. It is critical that this legislation be enacted this year because in 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 $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1997 to almost $4 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $8 billion 10 years from now. However, if these project-based assistance contracts are not renewed most of the FHA- insured 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. Like public housing, federally assisted and insured housing provides critical housing to almost 1.6 million American families. There are other similarities to public housing. For one, the average annual income of residents that reside in project-based housing is less than $7,000. A significant percentage of residents are elderly or 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 neighborhoods is dependent upon the viability of these properties. Unfortunately for residents and communities, HUD does not have the ability to administer and oversee its portfolio of multifamily housing properties. The General Accounting Office and the HUD Office of Inspector General [IG] have found that even though HUD has various enforcement tools to ensure that properties are properly maintained, poor management information systems and ineffective oversight of properties have impeded HUD's ability to identify problems and pursue enforcement actions in a timely fashion. HUD is further hampered by the lack of adequate staffing and inadequately trained staff. For example, the IG found that the average workload for a HUD loan servicer ranged from 28 projects per servicer to 105 projects per servicer. In comparison, State housing finance agencies averaged 12 to 16 projects per servicer. The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act addresses these issues 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 restructuring the underlying debt insured by FHA. This restructuring process will reduce the subsidy needs and costs of the properties and minimizes adverse tax consequences to good owners. In recognition of HUD's inability to manage and service its housing inventory, this legislation would transfer the functions and responsibilities to capable State and local housing agencies who would act as participating administrative entities in managing this program. Incentives would be provided to these entities to ensure that the American taxpayer is paying the least amount of money 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. Horror stories of owners that have clearly violated housing quality standards would no longer be tolerated. Our 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. Lastly, our bill provides tools to recapitalize the assisted stock that suffer from deferred maintenance and empowers residents by providing for meaningful community and resident input into the process. Residents would also be empowered through opportunities to purchase properties. Mr. President, I would like to reemphasize that it is critical that we 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. Further, HUD only has limited statutory authority to renew these contracts. In most cases, it cannot and does not have the capability to deal with this housing portfolio under current law. 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 real effort to reduce the costs of the Federal Government while recognizing the needs of low-income families and communities throughout the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of Senator D'Amato, Bond, and Bennett, the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1996. 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 maintaining the affordability and availability of decent and safe rental housing. 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 assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] project-based Section 8 programs. In addition, tax incentives for the development of low-income housing were provided through the tax code until 1986. The combination of these financial incentives resulted in the creation of thousands of decent, safe, and affordable housing properties but, at a great cost to the American taxpayer. Flaws in the Section 8 rental assistance program allowed owners to receive more Federal dollars in rental subsidy than was necessary to maintain properties as decent and affordable rental housing. A recent HUD study found that almost two-thirds of assisted properties have contract rents greater than comparable market rents. 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, and it cannot be sustained in the current budget environment. It is critical that this legislation be enacted this year because in 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 $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1997 to almost $4 billion in fiscal year 2000 and $8 billion 10 years from now. However, if these project-based assistance contracts are not renewed most of the FHA- insured 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. Like public housing, federally assisted and insured housing provides critical housing to almost 1.6 million American families. There are other similarities to public housing. For one, the average annual income of residents that reside in project-based housing is less than $7,000. A significant percentage of residents are elderly or 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 neighborhoods is dependent upon the viability of these properties. Unfortunately for residents and communities, HUD does not have the ability to administer and oversee its portfolio of multifamily housing properties. The General Accounting Office and the HUD Office of Inspector General [IG] have found that even though HUD has various enforcement tools to ensure that properties are properly maintained, poor management information systems and ineffective oversight of properties have impeded HUD's ability to identify problems and pursue enforcement actions in a timely fashion. HUD is further hampered by the lack of adequate staffing and inadequately trained staff. For example, the IG found that the average workload for a HUD loan servicer ranged from 28 projects per servicer to 105 projects per servicer. In comparison, State housing finance agencies averaged 12 to 16 projects per servicer. The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act addresses these issues 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 restructuring the underlying debt insured by FHA. This restructuring process will reduce the subsidy needs and costs of the properties and minimizes adverse tax consequences to good owners. In recognition of HUD's inability to manage and service its housing inventory, this legislation would transfer the functions and responsibilities to capable State and local housing agencies who would act as participating administrative entities in managing this program. Incentives would be provided to these entities to ensure that the American taxpayer is paying the least amount of money 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. Horror stories of owners that have clearly violated housing quality standards would no longer be tolerated. Our 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. Lastly, our bill provides tools to recapitalize the assisted stock that suffer from deferred maintenance and empowers residents by providing for meaningful community and resident input into the process. Residents would also be empowered through opportunities to purchase properties. Mr. President, I would like to reemphasize that it is critical that we 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. Further, HUD only has limited statutory authority to renew these contracts. In most cases, it cannot and does not have the capability to deal with this housing portfolio under current law. 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 real effort to reduce the costs of the Federal Government while recognizing the needs of low-income families and communities throughout the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.