Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to amendment No. 4935 offered by Senator Gramm. This amendment would deny Federal means- tested benefits to individuals convicted of illegal drug possession, use, or distribution. Personally, I agree with the idea of not giving Government benefits to drug dealers, however, I do not think the Federal Government should continue to tell the States how to run their welfare programs. There are provisions in the bill to ensure that criminals are not milking the system. We keep saying that we want the States to decide what is best for their States. I believe we have already put enough mandates on the block grants, and the denial of benefits in the Gramm amendment would just increase mandates. Let the States make those decisions.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation entitled the Transportation Empowerment Act which will return primary transportation program responsibility and taxing authority to the States. I intend to be brief today. But, I will be back on the floor to speak to this proposal periodically over the remainder of the Congress and again early in the next Congress as debate begins in earnest on the reauthorization of the transportation bill known as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. The era of Big Government is over. The highway system is a relic of this era and a perfect example of a program that ought to be returned to the States. In the 1950's, the Federal Government began building the Interstate Highway System. Its construction was slated to last 13 years and cost $25 billion. It has lasted 40 years at a cost of about $130 billion. At the same time, the Federal-Aid Highways Program was also expanded to include more than $170 billion in other programs and projects. The antiquated system of collecting and distributing gas tax dollars to fund these programs as well as the transportation priorities of the States and local governments is inefficient, costly, and bureaucratic. The Interstate Highway System is complete. Now it's time to change directions to provide State and local governments the authority and the flexibility to move forward without succumbing to the bureaucratic whims of Washington. This legislation does just that--it re-empowers States to make their own decisions. This bill uses a 2-year transition period to lower the Federal gas tax, eliminate most highway trust fund programs, relieve States of an array of regulations and restrictions, and remove Federal roadblocks to infrastructure privatization. This proposal provides that the Federal Government would retain a core Federal transportation program including maintenance of the current Interstate System. Federal participation would also continue for Indian reservation roads, public lands, parkways and park roads, and emergency relief. The bottom line is this--for far too long Washington has had a stranglehold on States' transportation needs. It's past time for Washington to let go and let the States take responsibility for their own surface transportation needs. Mr. President, I have included several letters on this issue which I have previously sent to my Senate colleagues and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a summary of this legislation be printed in the Record. I ask my colleagues to review this proposal and to consider joining me as a cosponsor of this legislation which will re-empower States and end Washington's micromanagement of States' transportation dollars and priorities.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 295, the Teamwork for Employees and Management Act. This bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, amends the National Labor Relations Board Act to permit teams of employees in nonunion settings to work with management to address workplace issues of mutual interest. Under current law, only union representatives can represent workers in communication with management. In an article in this week's edition of the AFL-CIO News, union members were urged to call their Senators and tell them that ``the TEAM Act is an underhanded effort to prevent workers from forming unions.'' This is simply false. The TEAM Act merely gives non-union workers an effective voice for change in the workplace. In essence, the bill extends the same rights to non-union workers which union members already possess. How can that be such a bad idea? Employee participation on labor/management teams gives them the opportunity to make significant and valuable contributions to their companies. Employee involvement teams are about respect and fairness for all workers. Today's worker's have much to offer about the work they perform, and employers have learned to listen to them. Even President Clinton agreed with this concept. In his 1996 State of the Union Message he said: ``When companies and workers work as a team, they do better--and so does America.'' I could not agree more. Mr. President, there are many difficult issues facing America's work force. One area which should be neither challenging nor stressful is the relationship between labor and management. I believe that Congress must offer policies which improve the quality of work life and reduce the tension between managers and workers. The TEAM Act is such a proposal. This bill intends to break down the communication barriers between employers and employees, and as a result, establish more cooperative labor/management relationships in American companies. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues' support of this legislation. American laws should be designed to stimulate and encourage cooperation and teamwork in the work force, rather than suppress such activities. The time has come to pass the TEAM Act.

Mr. MACK

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

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. MACK. First, I thank the Senator for his comments. I look forward to the debate as well. I yield 1 minute to Senator Bennett.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield that minute to Senator Simon.

Mr. MACK. If I could add Senator Bennett for 5 minutes as well. I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. MACK. The unanimous-consent request is 2 minutes for Senator Mack, 5 minutes for Senator Simon, 5 minutes for Senator Harkin, and 5 minutes for Senator Bennett.

Mr. MACK. If the Senator would allow me, we have had limited time. The fundamental issue underlying this debate is taking responsibility. Again, I think that there are a number of individuals who want to shift the blame to create Alan Greenspan as the scapegoat for this economy. The reality is, the responsibility is with the Congress. It is what the Congress has done over the last number of years--again, increasing taxes, increasing Washington's interference, more regulation--that has slowed the economy down. The worst thing we can do now is to put more money into the system which creates inflation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from Iowa, again, the fundamental debate does need to take place about monetary and fiscal policy. This is a debate that right now, frankly, is something that really concerns me. It has been something that has concerned me ever since I came to the Congress 14 years ago, that somehow or another the Congress would have more control over the Federal Reserve. My fear is that Congress has made a mess of fiscal policy. If Congress gets more involved in monetary policy, it would be a disaster for the country. So I start with that premise. Again, I make reference to what Senator Simon made reference to earlier, that when there was an impression that we were going to get our fiscal house in order, long-term interest rates, in fact, started to come down. It was not until the President vetoed the Balanced Budget Act that we saw long-term interest rates start to go up. There is a major, major role in this with respect to fiscal policy. It seems to me those individuals who have for years supported more Government, higher taxes, more regulation, more Washington interference, are now trying to say that because the economy is growing at 2.3 percent, somehow or another it is the Federal Reserve's fault. I fundamentally disagree with that.

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent that we both be given 5 minutes, for a total of 5 minutes each.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as I was saying, I think we will get ourselves engaged in a debate at some future time with respect to what is the central role of the Federal Reserve. But as I indicated a moment ago, it is interesting to me to listen to my colleague from Iowa talk about his dissatisfaction, which I happen to share, with the growth in the economy. I believe that, with the reassessment of the economic growth in the last quarter from 2.8 percent to 2.3 percent, the growth rate during the Clinton years is somewhere around 2.3, 2.4 percent. But what is interesting about the debate is the fact that President Clinton, during his State of the Union Address before a joint session of the Congress, said that this is the strongest economy that we have experienced in three decades. So, I am not real sure where the President is heading with this. If he is satisfied with 2.5 percent real growth, I find that shocking, and I think that the workers in America, the families of America who are telling me that they are extremely anxious about their future, about whether jobs are going to be available to them, would reject the notion that somehow or another we should be satisfied with 2.3 or 2.4 percent real growth. Again, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that the whole purpose of economic policy is to increase the growth rate, to provide jobs, provide opportunity and increase the standard of living for all Americans. The question is how do we do it. Where we differ, frankly, is, I believe that raising taxes, adding burdens to American business, increasing their costs, overregulating, Washington interference slows down that economic activity and reduces opportunity. To have passed a series of policies that do those things and then say on top of that we want the Federal Reserve to compensate it is the worst of all worlds. You slow down economic growth, you slow down production, you increase the money supply and you drive inflation. That is, in my opinion, just the wrong approach to take. Again, I remind my colleagues that in the late 1970's, one-third of everything that someone had worked for through their entire lives--and I am now talking about the retirees in the State of Florida who have talked to me about this issue, who lost one-third of everything they had earned throughout their entire lifetime and, I might add, a number of those being farmers from the Midwest who had spent their entire life toiling in the field, setting aside money for the day when they might retire--and in a 3- or 4-year period, one-third of everything they had saved disappeared. So I happen to believe that the Federal Reserve is on the right course, the Federal Reserve should maintain its commitment to price stability, because with price stability, you have created an environment, if we put in place the right kind of fiscal policy, where we can get this country moving again. We can do better, and we must do better. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent for 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will vote whether or not to confirm Alan Greenspan for a third term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. I have listened to the debate about his performance as Chairman, and the claims that his policies have permitted annual economic growth of only 2.5 percent. Chairman Greenspan's critics say that his pursuit of price stability has compromised the growth of the economy, and they're trying to make him the scapegoat for today's slow growth. My colleagues are right about one thing, slow economic growth hurts all Americans. It leads to stagnating incomes, fewer job opportunities and widespread insecurity about the future. You should hear the complaints I have been hearing from my constituents in Florida. They are frustrated. They do not understand why America--the greatest country in the world--a country with unlimited opportunity--is falling behind. It is frustrating to me, too, because I know we can do better. But I think some of my colleagues have seriously misdiagnosed the problem. It is vitally important for us to understand why this economy's performance is so lackluster, and what policies can help it reach its full potential. In my estimation, Alan Greenspan is not the problem. Bad economic policies enacted by the Clinton administration and previous Congresses are. Since 1978, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act has demanded that the Federal Reserve simultaneously promote full employment, maximum production, and price stability. In other words, the Fed is being told to try to finetune the economy. The failures and problems caused by this divided focus have lad many observers to conclude that an important first step on the road to meaningful economic growth is to have the Fed concentrate solely on what it can actually achieve: price stability. Let me quote former Federal Reserve governor Wayne Angell, who wrote: It is completely appropriate to give our government multiple policy goals, including lowering unemployment, promoting economic growth, and maintaining stable prices. All of these goals contribute to the well-being of our people. There is much to lose, however, in charging the Federal Reserve with all these tasks. The reason why the Fed can not achieve multiple goals is simple: it only controls one monetary policy tool--the amount of money in the economy. This ability to create money and operate through the monetary base means that the Fed can control inflation. Sure, the Fed can also stimulate economic growth and create demand in the short run by printing additional money, but such growth is not without cost. Because, in the long run, printing excess money always leads to inflation, and thereby diminishes whatever economic gains were realized during the short run. The Fed can only encourage long-run economic growth if Congress repeals the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. Therefore, I have introduced the Economic Growth and Price Stability Act, to focus the Fed solely on stable prices. This bill would serve to hold down the inflation premium part of interest rates, so that buying a home or a car, or taking out a student loan will be more affordable. But even if the Fed, and its Chairman, achieve the goal of price stability, that is still no guarantee that Americans will see robust long-term economic growth. Do not get me wrong, price stability is absolutely necessary for growth, but by no means is it sufficient. The presence of harmful fiscal policy can render even the most beneficial monetary policy useless. That is part of the reason American families are feeling such anxiety today: the growth of Government is paralyzing the growth of the economy. In short, the Clinton administration's misguided fiscal policies have put working families in a bind. Just look at how President Clinton's policies of high taxes and bigger Government have led to this weak economy. Let us compare growth under President Clinton to historical averages, reaching back to the end of World War II. The results are astonishing: Since Bill Clinton became President, GDP growth has only averaged 2.4 percent at an annual rate. Compare that to the growth rate he inherited: in 1992, the economy grew at a robust 3.7 percent. During the entire decade before President Clinton took office, annual economic growth averaged 3.2 percent. During the last five periods of economic expansion growth averaged 4.4 percent, and economists--believe it or not--call today's economy an expansion. Finally, if you look at economic growth rates all the way back to the end of World War II: growth has averaged 3.3 percent. President Clinton and his policies have simply failed to measure up. It is what some people call the Clinton growth gap or the Clinton crunch--the difference between the growth America has experienced under the Clinton administration and what we should reasonably have been able to expect, given historical trends. The Clinton growth gap has meant a lower standard of living for every child, every woman, and every man in America. We can do better. We must do better. We can reverse this trend by balancing the budget, lowering taxes, cutting regulations and generally getting Washington off the backs of the American people. The key to achieving strong economic growth is our remarkable entrepreneurial spirit. The economy can grow faster, but Government needs to step out of the way. Bottom line, it is not the Federal Reserve and Chairman Greenspan who are causing today's economic problems; it is the harmful economic policies of President Clinton, his administration and previous Congresses. Chairman Greenspan knows what needs to be done. He remains committed to price stability, and agrees that fighting inflation should be the Fed's only focus. But he has been hamstrung by counterproductive fiscal policies and a mandate to make the Federal Reserve all things to all people. He has been asked to do the impossible, and then some people turn around and blame him for the economy's anemic growth rate. That's unfair, and it's simply wrong. President Clinton and his allies here in Congress cannot rationally expect to keep taxing and regulating and spending, while the Fed indulges them by printing more and more money to feed their excess. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support Alan Greenspan's nomination to a third term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I encourage my colleagues to stop looking for a convenient scapegoat for failed economic policies he had nothing to do with. I hope you will join me in voting for his renomination. And we can work together to enact meaningful pro-growth economic policies that will give Americans the kind of robust economic growth they deserve. I say to my distinguished colleague from Iowa, I had the opportunity last week, as he knows, to listen to his presentation, and I think he is absolutely right in a couple of senses. The first is that this is a very important debate. Unfortunately, again, you are right in the sense that a lot of this has been discussed on the basis of things really other than the role of the Federal Reserve. There has been a lot of discussion about character and personality. I happen to think a great deal of Chairman Greenspan, but that is not the point. The real issue here is what is the role of monetary policy. The second point that we agree upon, at least--but it does kind of point out, I think, a difficult position for the administration--is you and I agree completely that it is unacceptable to reach a point in this country that we somehow have to believe that 2.5 percent real growth is something we ought to be proud of. Frankly, we are not going to be able to provide the opportunities to future generations, to our children and our grandchildren if we are going to accept the notion that this country can only grow at 2.5 percent real growth. What will happen to working families? What will happen to farmers? What will happen to small businesses? What will happen to our families? What will happen to our retirees? I say to my distinguished colleague that I happen to be one of those individuals who, too, was affected by what happened in the 1970's. I remind him that it was not just the seventies. Economies of all countries have been fighting this battle against inflation ever since there was the invention of money. But I remember those town meetings in the early 1980's when the folks in my part of the State of Florida were telling me of the destruction they experienced of their savings; that they lost, in essence, one-third of everything they had set aside and worked for throughout their entire lives, disappeared in a matter of 3 or 4 years because of inflation being out of control. So I think it is important, in fact, I believe that the only objective of the Federal Reserve should be to maintain price stability. I have heard my colleague, Senator Harkin, say that there ought to be a balanced approach with respect to the Federal Reserve. I am going to give you my interpretation of what that means to have a balanced approach. There are those who suggest that the Congress and the administration can be engaged in a series of economic policies that ought to be offset or balanced, if you will, by the Federal Reserve--have higher taxes, more Federal spending, more Washington interference in the workplace, in businesses in America. The end result of that is it slows down economic activity, it reduces productivity, and these same businesses are no longer able to produce at the level that they were prior to the intervention of fiscal policy. So the theory is, let us have a balanced approach, let us see that the Federal Reserve, in essence, offsets bad fiscal policy. What we get is right back to where we were in the late 1970's, which is referred to as ``stagflation.'' Most people would understand it as too many dollars chasing too few goods, and that drives up inflation. So what I will say to my colleague, this is a very important debate, because we ought to be focusing in on what is the role of the Federal Reserve, and I suggest probably in the months ahead, we will probably be engaged in a debate about the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. I think it is wrong to give the Federal Reserve a series of objectives. It is like having two bosses, if you will, or multiple bosses. I see that the Chair is about to announce to me that the time has expired. I wonder if I can ask unanimous consent--

Mr. MACK. Reserving the right to object, and it is not my intention to do so, I was going to allow the time to expire really, but I ask unanimous consent just for 2 minutes for myself, and then 5 minutes for Senator Simon, and 5 minutes for Senator Harkin.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Iowa how long he intends to go beyond this point. The reason I inquire is because I do not want to inconvenience the Chair as well.

Mr. MACK. I thank you, Mr. President. I too want to thank the Senator from Iowa for his consideration.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the campaign for Israel's first directly elected Prime Minister not only brought a victory for Benjamin Netanyahu but a defeat for the mistaken idea that peace can only be defined from a liberal perspective. While two well-qualified candidates with different ideologies each articulated their vision for the country, many in the American media-- those who reported on the campaign and the experts journalists chose to interview--hid behind stereotypes and missed the real point of the election. At its very core, the campaign was not about whether there should be peace but how to define it. The American media told us the issue was simply this: Shimon Peres, the liberal, wanted peace. Benjamin Netanyahu, the conservative, didn't. Implied in this ridiculous statement is the wrong assumption that only liberals understand peace. In the days since the election, the American media aren't quite certain how to characterize Mr. Netanyahu. When Mr. Netanyahu recently expressed his desire for Israel to continue to seek peace with its Arab neighbors--a position he has advocated all along--a Washington Post story identified him as ``kinder and gentler.'' The media's failure to understand Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative principles of real peace--real security underscores the differences in how liberals and conservatives view foreign policy. The left believes peace is simply the absence of conflict. To achieve peace, the left will do whatever is necessary and in many cases give up whatever is necessary simply to maintain the peace. Conservatives believe peace without freedom is false. Only through the guiding principle that freedom is the core of all human progress can a nation build a lasting peace. After all, what is peace without freedom? What is peace if it means living in constant fear? In Cuba and China today, there is peace, but certainly no freedom. When any nation builds its foreign policy on a foundation of freedom, democracy, justice, and human rights, true peace and hope will inevitably prevail. During the 1980's, the left and the media soundly criticized Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when their policies boldly stated that negotiations with the Soviet Union must be carried out from a position of strength and security . . . not appeasement. History proved them right. Freedom won. The Berlin Wall--a symbol of tyranny and oppression--crumbled and communism was replaced by capitalism. Even if many in the American media apparently believe in the ludicrous claim that appeasement leads to peace, Israeli Jews--a majority of whom voted for Netanyahu--correctly understand that protecting freedom is essential to preserving peace. In his analysis of the election, A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times said it best when he wrote: ``the majority was not voting against peace--the very idea is idiocy--but for the hope that Mr. Netanyahu and a Likud-led coalition might create a peace they could trust while they slept, not just while they stood at arms.'' In a region where Israel's neighbors have vowed its destruction, where thousands of missiles in other countries are pointed at Israel's cities, where well-financed terrorists threaten to murder and frighten Israel's citizens, appeasement through weakness will only invite more violence, more bloodshed and inevitably a loss of freedom and peace. We all want peace for Israel--a shining jewel of democracy in a region where freedom is often unwelcome. Choosing the best road for achieving that peace is the task that awaits Benjamin Netanyahu. He understands--as well as the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews who voted for him--that only when Israel is secure, can Israel truly be free and at peace.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 401, S. 1579.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be deemed read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto appear at an appropriate place in the Record as if read.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand that the Chair has been authorized to appoint conferees to H.R. 2977. The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Levin conferees on the part of the Senate.