Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 1136. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1136) entitled ``An Act to control and prevent commercial counterfeiting, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, June 14, 1996, at 1 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 18, and, further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin consideration of S. 1745, the Department of Defense authorization bill as under the previous consent agreement.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin consideration of the DOD authorization bill on Tuesday. Senators may give opening statements on the bill beginning at 10 a.m.; however, no amendments will be in order prior to 2:15 on Tuesday. Also, the Senate will recess from the hour of 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet. As a reminder, the Senate will resume debate on the Greenspan nomination on Thursday, June 20, with a vote to occur on the nomination at 2 p.m. on that day.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate today to bid farewell to a friend, a leader, a colleague, and an authentic American hero. Bob Dole embodies what is right about America. Seasoned by the values and humble atmosphere of small-town America, the experience of war, and perseverance through physical trials, Bob Dole has earned the respect and admiration of us all. He is a legendary legislator who is known for his honesty, integrity, and fair-mindedness. Bob Dole is an authentic war hero who stood on the front lines in the fight against tyranny and sacrificed so that others may live in freedom. He understands the commitment and sacrifice necessary to protect and preserve freedom. I would like to share a couple of stories with my colleagues, one having to do with a trip to France back in the mid-1980's. I had an opportunity to respond to questions from a French audience for almost 2 hours and at the end of that, had the opportunity to ask them a question. I told them I was going to be returning to America in a few days, and I wanted to know what they would tell me to tell the people of Florida about what they thought of our Nation. The first several people who came and stood up said that we think of America as a great, dynamic, growing country, and one that is providing opportunities for millions of Americans. The third person that stood up was a fellow who was probably his late seventies or early eighties, a little bit wobbly, steadying himself with a cane, and looked me square in the eye, and he said, ``When you go back to America, you tell the people of your country that we will never forget that it was the American GI that liberated our little town.'' The second story is the opportunity that I had, along with some of my other colleagues here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, to be in Italy with Bob Dole at the time he returned to the battlefield where he was wounded and stood on the road as he looked over to the area in which he laid for 9 hours before being rescued. Later, we walked down the street of this little town where Bob Dole laid a wreath at a monument in memory of those individuals who gave their lives in defense of freedom and liberation of Italy. As I stood by his side that day, I truly understood that this was a man who understood the importance of freedom; that freedom is the core of all human progress, and while the price of freedom may be great, there is no price so great as the loss of freedom. We can see the mettle of the man in his decision to leave behind leadership of the U.S. Senate to pursue the Presidency. He is doing it because it is simply the right thing to do. Bob Dole has so much to give America through his experience and his wisdom. While this is a day of reflection, it is also a day of anticipation. I am confident that Bob Dole is not done serving his country, and America will be better for it. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to announce legislation I am introducing--along with Senator Bradley and others--to reaffirm the Federal role in beach preservation and renourishment. I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey for his steadfast efforts on this issue and for all he did to make this bill possible. Mr. President, in my State of Florida, healthy beaches mean a healthy economy. Each year, millions of people travel from around the world to enjoy the recreational benefits of my State's coastlines. This tourist activity sustains our economy and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for Floridians. As a consequence, people in Florida care deeply about the future of our beaches and look to us to ensure that they are properly maintained. For 60 years, Mr. President, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked in partnership with the Congress, the States, and coastal communities to devise a workable policy on sandy beach renourishment. The Corps brought to this partnership a wealth of accumulated technical expertise and institutional knowledge about beach preservation. Further, they brought funding which was leveraged with State and local participation into projects which directly benefited the Nation's coastlines. This all ended last year when the Clinton administration turned its back on coastal communities by ending the traditional Federal role in beach renourishment. In its 1996 budget request, the administration indicated that beach preservation and maintenance was no longer of national significance. I strongly disagree. Almost half our population lives in or near coastal communities. The coastal economy is responsible for one-third of our gross domestic product and more than 28 million jobs. Much of this economic activity derives from the vacationtime lure of healthy beaches. These projects truly are of national significance, Mr. President, and the Corps of Engineers ought to remain a full partner in this effort. Last year, I joined Senator Bradley and several of my colleagues in twice writing the administration in protest. Further, we restored the Corps' authority through the appropriations process. This victory was only short term, however, and coastal communities throughout the Nation asked Congress for assurance of a permanent Federal presence in this sector. When the administration released this year's budget and again proposed to end the Corps' involvement in restoring beaches, we began to explore a permanent legislative solution to this problem. The culmination of our efforts is the bill we are introducing today. Our legislation is very simple, Mr. President. We amend the mission of the Corps to include shore protection projects, and we mandate that the Corps make recommendations to Congress on specific projects that are worthy of Federal participation. Further, we require the Corps to consider benefits to the local and regional economy and ecology when considering preparing cost/benefit analyses on beach projects. And we encourage the Corps to work with the States and local communities on regional plans for the long-term preservation of our coastal resources. Mr. President, this bill will ensure that the Federal Government remains a full partner with the States and communities on the preservation of our beach resources. This is critical to Florida and to our Nation's economy. I encourage my colleagues to join the Senator from New Jersey and me as we continue to move ahead on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to focus my remarks this morning not so much on the specifics of the budget, as others will during the next several days, rather I will focus on the economic conditions that surround this debate. The distinguished Senator from Nebraska who a minute ago said he hoped that we Republicans would give President Clinton credit for good economic news, may be disappointed in what I have to say, because it certainly is not my intention to give the President high marks for what is happening in the economy. I ask people to reflect first on my very strong feelings about the Office of President of the United States, an office that all of us hold in high regard, when we think back across our history to some of the great leaders who have held that position. But today, as I discuss the economy, I find it difficult, frankly, to hold in high regard the comments made by the President of the United States with respect to what is happening with the economy, what is happening with growth, what is happening with opportunity. In his State of the Union Address this year, President Clinton said this is the strongest economy in three decades. Last year, fourth quarter to fourth quarter, the economy grew at an anemic 1.3 percent. Over the entire time that President Clinton has been in office, we have seen economic growth of only 2.4 percent a year. Compare that to the 10 years prior to President Clinton's administration, when economic growth in America averaged 3.4 percent a year. I do not believe this economy is something that we should brag about. Now, some economists cite statistics and say to us, ``Well, things are really kind of OK, not to worry.'' Let me tell you who I pay attention to. It may be all right for the President to pay attention to those economists and maybe try to hide behind the numbers--2.8 percent annual real growth in the first quarter of this year--while ignoring the fact that in 1995 we had only 1.3 percent real growth; or to say the unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent, while failing to say at the same time that there were no net jobs created in the private sector last month--none, zero. What does that mean? No opportunity. No opportunity to find a new job, no opportunity to leave one job to advance to another. No jobs created. When I want to know about the state of the economy, I pay attention to the people back home, people who come up to me and tell me they are worried about their future. In fact, it is interesting to ask people these days, how many of you believe that you are better off than your parents were at your age? Almost every hand in every audience goes up, agreeing that they are better off than the previous generation. But when you then ask how many believe their children will be better off when they are your age, maybe four or five hands go up. It appears that for the first time in a long, long time, we have a generation of Americans that thinks the next generation will not do as well as they have done. That is what is causing the tremendous anxiety that exists in America today. Still, President Clinton wants to claim the strongest economy in three decades--on the basis of 1.3 percent growth. It is interesting to remember that in 1992, when he was campaigning for the Presidency, he called the economy the worst in 50 years, even though the economy that year grew at 3.7 percent. It is a little difficult to understand the President's line of thinking: one day he talks about 3.7 percent growth as being a very weak economy, and then a few years later and he is President, and the economy is growing at only 1.3 percent, or even 2.4 percent, to say we have the strongest economy in three decades. It is very difficult for me, frankly, to give this administration, or this President, credit for a strong economy. I think we ought to, again, listen to what the people back home are saying to us. One example. I recently heard a story about a woman recalling that her husband had said to her on two separate occasions, ``You better not go out today. I may have to call and tell you to come pick me up, because I may not have a job when this day ends.'' I think about the mother telling her children she would not be home in the evening because she had to get a second job to make ends meet. One piece of statistical data that has not made the headlines is that, since January 1994, the number of individuals holding a second job has increased 17 percent. Now, the economists might tell working people not to worry. The President may tell working people not to worry, that everything is fine. But I can tell you that the people back home do not agree. They are very anxious about their future, and their ability to make ends meet. As a matter of fact, a recent poll asked, ``How worried are you about your ability to make ends meet?'' The response indicated that some 20 million American families a year say their ability to make ends meet is their No. 1 concern. Now there are 30 million families who are concerned about their ability to make ends meet. The anxiety question is real. Economists can say whatever they want, but the people in the State of Florida are concerned about the future. A couple of other statistics point to why people are feeling anxious. Real median family income has declined in 4 out of the last 5 years. And many other indicators suggest that trend will continue. Real compensation--that is, wages and benefits--grew only four-tenths of a percent in 1995, the slowest in 14 years. Between 1982 and 1989, real income per person grew three times as fast as it has since 1993, when President Clinton took office. The real issue before us is, how can we help create higher levels of growth? Should America be satisfied with 2.4 percent real growth, or worse? I say the answer is absolutely not. From the end of World War II to the beginning of the Clinton administration in 1993, economic growth averaged nearly 4 percent a year. Today, we are told we are doing well with growth of only 1.6 percent. Where are the jobs going to come from that will ensure prosperity and opportunity tomorrow? Not long ago, the President of the United States was in Florida, and there was debate over the future of the sugar industry in the Everglades. Protesters opposed to the administration's plan said they were going to lose their jobs. In essence, the President responded: ``Don't worry, we will see that anyone who loses their job will get another one.'' I wonder how many times he has made that comment around the country. But where does he think these jobs come from? Government doesn't create jobs. They come from the private sector, and they come as a result of Government getting out of the way and allowing for investment to take place. So we must begin this discussion, Mr. President, with the understanding that the economy is weak, not strong, that job creation has slowed. While the administration wants to brag about the 8.5 million jobs created since they came into office, they neglect to mention that if job formation took place at the same rate as in previous recoveries, there would have been 11.5 million jobs created in America, and we are really 3 million jobs short. Furthermore, of the 8.5 million jobs that have been created, many are second and part-time jobs going to families that need second jobs just to make ends meet. That does not make for a growing economy. I think it is also important that, when we debate the budget, we must remember who is paying the bills. I think about the people at home who come up and tell me about their tax burden, what they are being asked to pay for Government. I think of the young couple, the husband who works two jobs all week long, from early in the morning until late at night, five days a week, and then stays at home on Saturday and Sunday to take care of his little ones while their mom is out on her job over the weekend in order to make ends meet. I think about the couple that gets up at the crack of dawn and commutes long distances to work, and does not get home at night until well after dark, who cannot spend time with their kids, yet are being asked to pay more and more and more to the Federal Government. Do you know what really frustrates them? It is that they are being asked to work longer and harder to pay more taxes to support programs that they know have failed and to support individuals who are not working. That is the central theme that runs all through the debate. For example, with respect to the 4.3-cent rollback of the gasoline tax. Every time workers pull up to the gas pump, that 4.3 cents in gasoline taxes goes not to build more roads or to build more bridges, but to fund Federal programs they know have failed, and support people who refuse to work. That is why support for activities here in Washington, DC, has been so deeply undermined in America. So, Mr. President, I believe our debate should not be so much concerned about this budget itself, but about what needs to happen in order to spur growth of this country, and thereby provide more hope and opportunity for more Americans. Let me make one other point about productivity growth. Prior to the mid-1970's, productivity in America grew approximately 2.1 percent a year. In the last 10 years, that rate declined to about 1.1 percent. And now, during the 3 years of the Clinton administration, productivity growth has averaged only three-tenths of a percent. If productivity does not increase in a meaningful way, there is no way to pass on higher wages to employees. What is causing productivity to decline? More taxes, more spending, more Government, and less freedom, including taking away the freedom to pursue greater creativity, to spur American ingenuity, and to provide opportunity. With higher taxes, more regulation, and more interference from Washington, there is less opportunity for American business to be more productive, more competitive, and to create jobs. So, Mr. President, I say that, at this point, this economy is weak. There is no sign that, in the long run, we are going to achieve higher levels economic activity or offer hope and opportunity to future generations of Americans unless we follow far different policies than the ones offered by the administration. Those politicians who believe that today's economic statistics indicate opportunity are making a grave mistake. The debate on this budget should be about America's future, about the ability to create jobs and opportunity through more investment, job creation, and business formation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. (Mr. ABRAHAM assumed the chair.)

Mr. MACK. I think it would be helpful if we put this debate in terms that citizens around the country can associate themselves with. I remember last year when we were going through this debate, we talked about what would happen if we got a balanced budget. We said that interest rates would come down and that would mean lower mortgage payments, lower automobile payments, and more affordable student loans. I think it is important to look closely at what has happened since we did not get an agreement on a balanced budget. Long-term interest rates have risen by a percentage point. What does that mean to the average consumer, to the couple who is out there today closing on the purchase of their first home? For the average home in America, that higher interest rate means they will pay about $650 more each year in payments, or another $100 a year for a car. So there are real consequences to this debate and for failing to get a balanced budget proposal through the Congress and signed by the President of the United States. Real families, real individuals, hard working men and women of America, are paying hundreds of dollars more each year because of the failure to come to an agreement on a balanced budget. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. MACK. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Would the Senator agree it is possible that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are filibustering this legislation because, frankly, it is an embarrassment if this 4.3-cent gasoline tax cut were to make its way to the President of the United States? Again, what I am trying to draw in your mind is a picture of the President of the United States who campaigned in 1992 that he was going to reduce the burden on America's middle-income families. In fact, I think he proposed a tax cut for middle-income families. Then within the first year after he was elected he introduced and enabled the passage of a tax plan that would, in fact, increase taxes on all Americans, part of which was the 4.3-cent gasoline tax. Now, we are in a situation where we would be saying that we want to give the President an opportunity to keep his campaign promise of 1992, but it puts him in an embarrassing position, because after he got through saying the things he said in 1992, he went ahead and supported the tax increase. Is it possible our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are engaging in this filibuster to try to protect the President from an embarrassing situation where he will either have to sign into law something that would reverse something he has done, or he will have to veto?

Mr. MACK. Would the Senator from Georgia be willing to yield for a question?

Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, I rise today to address the future of the American dream. America was built on the spirit of innovation and ingenuity, the belief in responsibility, and in risk taking. We believed that, if we just did the right thing and we worked hard at it, opportunity would be there. But for many Americans who struggle to earn a living and raise a family, the American dream is now out of reach. When I ask my constituents this question, ``How many of you have a better quality of life than your parents did when they were your age?'' most said yes. But when I asked them, ``How many of you honestly believe your children will have a better quality of life when they reach your age?'' most said no. Today, Americans are anxious. They are anxious about job security with an economy which is not growing as fast as it should. They are anxious about the future of our Nation when every child born in America today will receive a tax bill of $187,000 just to pay the interest on the Federal debt. They are anxious about paying for a welfare system that discourages work as opposed to encouraging work. They are anxious about the quality of their children's education. They are anxious about the safety of their neighborhoods. They are anxious about a Washington that spends too much, dictates too much, and takes too much of their money to pay for programs that we all now know have failed. We can and must do better. The Clinton administration will brag that economic growth is strong. However, under Clintonomics, the economy is moving at a slower pace than it has historically. We should not allow this administration to hide behind statistics and lower expectations for the greatest economy in the world. America was made great because we have strived, sacrificed, and worked together to be the best. We must not settle for economic mediocrity. The Clinton administration will brag that it has created more than 8 million new jobs. So where is the problem? They will not tell you that, if this recovery were similar to previous recoveries, there should have been over 11 million new jobs created. That is 3 million jobs that should have been created for American families and were not because of excessive Washington interference. The Clinton administration will tell the American worker, ``Do not worry. Everything is fine.'' But the American worker knows better. They feel the anxiety of Clintonomics every time they pick up their pay checks or read a story about loss of jobs and layoffs. We can and must do better. Like every other issue, this administration wants to blame Americans' anxieties on everyone else. Bill Clinton cannot impose the largest tax hike in American history and spend more on Washington programs and work to control more of our lives from Washington without facing the consequences of lost jobs, low wages, and limited opportunities. A small businessman in Florida told me that he is often forced to tell his employees that the pay raise they were hoping to receive was just sent to Washington, DC. We can and must do better. We can begin to restore the American dream by cutting Bill Clinton's tax increases. Next Tuesday marks Tax Freedom Day, the day your entire tax bill would be paid off if 100 percent of your salary were devoted to taxes since January 1. Let me say that in a different way. What that means is that between January 1 of this year until May 2, it will take everything you earn to pay your tax bill for the State, local, and Federal governments. This year tax freedom day is the latest it has ever been. For every dollar that is earned, the American people pay 38 cents for taxes at all levels. That is 38 percent of everything we earn. The more you pay in taxes, the less you have to feed your family, educate your children, and put gas in the car. It is no wonder that of all the new jobs in America, more than one-third have gone to people taking an extra job just to make ends meet. Those jobs are not going to young Americans entering the work force for the first time or to those who should be off welfare. They are second jobs that families must have just to get by. It strains the economy, and it hurts our families. We must free the economy from the burdens of more taxes and more government so resources can be invested in new technologies for tomorrow's jobs. We must cut the capital gains tax rate to allow for more savings and more investment, for more innovation and more opportunity for future generations. Americans are having to work harder and harder just to pay for larger and larger bureaucracies in Washington that include 160 job training programs, 240 education programs, 300 economic development programs, and 500 urban aid programs. American taxpayers feel they are not getting their money's worth and they are not. We must end Washington's appetite for more spending because higher deficits mean higher interest rates for homes, cars and student loans. President Clinton was wrong to veto the only balanced budget to reach the White House in a generation. We must recover the American dream by controlling America's spending habits. I proposed a way to guarantee spending cuts. It is called the Spending Reductions Commitment Act. An outside group would cut wasteful spending if Washington does not. In other words, it is patterned after the Base Closure Commission. We restore the American dream when we have reduced the cost, size, and scope of government. Most of us believe that Washington is too big, spends too much, and has too many failed programs. We can and must do better to restore the American dream, to free up the American spirit, to restore the promise of hope and opportunity for all Americans. If we get Washington off our backs, away from our schools and out of our pocketbooks, we can return this country to the road of greatness where it has been in the past and where it is destined to be in the future. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the following American-Jewish Committee message of solidarity with Israel against terrorism. The message appeared as a full-page advertisement in the New York Times on March 17, 1996. The message follows: We stand with Israel--in grief, in solidarity, in our resolve to fight terrorism. Again and again, terrorists intent on destroying Israel and halting the Arab-Israeli peace process have taken their deadly toll of innocent lives. In the latest horrific attacks, scores have been killed: Israelis young and old; Jews and non-Jews; citizens and visitors, including two young Americans. We stand as one in our condemnation of those who commit and assist such heinous acts. The murderers and their supporters serve no agenda other than blind, fanatical hatred. Israelis, Palestinians, the international community must act to stop these killers now. Through every practical means, the promoters of terror must be defeated, their pipelines of financial and logistical support choked off. We stand as one with the people of Israel and Jews the world over in mourning the victims of terrorist murder--as we have stood with Israel in other times of peril, and in times of accomplishment and hope. We stand with Israel in its age- old quest for peace and security. This is a time of sorrow and reflection for the people of Israel, and for all who seek peace. It is a time of challenge for a country that has maintained its commitment to peace and freedom under relentless attack. We stand with Israel--in grief, in solidarity, and in our resolve to fight terrorists committed to the death of innocents and the death of hope. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii. Sen. Spencer Abraham, Michigan. Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, New York. Gov. George Allen, Virginia. Rep. Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey. Mayor Dennis W. Archer, Detroit. Dr. Don Argue, President, National Association of Evangelicals. Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia. Rep. Thomas M. Barrett, Wisconsin. Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC. Rep. Herbert H. Bateman, Virginia. Rep. Howard L. Berman, California. Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago. Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Delaware. Prof. Thomas E. Bird, Queens College. David Blewett, Executive Director, National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel. Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Virginia. Rep. Robert A. Borski, Pennsylvania. Prof. David M. Bossman, Seton Hall University. Sen. Barbara Boxer, California. Sen. Bill Bradley, New Jersey. Rep. Sherrod Brown, Ohio. Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr., San Francisco. Rep. Sam Brownback, Kansas. Rep. John Bryant, Texas. Rev. Alfred S. Burnham, Ecumenical and Interreligious Director, Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Right Rev. John Burt, President, National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel. Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado. Mayor Bill Campbell, Atlanta. Del. Eric Cantor, Virginia. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland. Gov. Mel Carnahan, Missouri. David Chen, Executive Director, Chinese American Planning Council. Mayor Emanuel Cleaver II, Kansas City. Sen. William S. Cohen, Maine. Robert E. Cooley, President, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Dr. James H. Costen, President, Inter-Denominational Theological Center. Rep. William J. Coyne, Pennsylvania. Rep. Randy Cunningham, California. Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato, New York. Rep. Pat Danner, Missouri. Sen. Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota, Senate Minority Leader. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia. Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut. Rep. Peter Deutsch, Florida. Guarione M. Diaz, President, Cuban American National Council. Rep. Julian C. Dixon, California. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut. Sr. Audrey Doetzel, N.D.S., Sisters of Our Lady of Zion. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Texas. Sen. Robert Dole, Kansas, Senate Majority Leader. Most Rev. John F. Donoghue, Archbishop of Atlanta. Rep. Michael F. Doyle, Pennsylvania. Rev. Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Rev. James M. Dunn, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. Rev. Nicholas B. van Dyck, President, Religion in American Life. Clint Eastwood Actor/Director, Los Angeles. Gov. Jim Edgar, Illinois. Rep. Eliot L. Engel, New York. Gov. John Engler, Michigan. Dr. Paul Eppinger, Executive Director, Arizona Ecumenical Council. Rep. Anna Eshoo, California. Rev. Dr. Robert A. Everett, Pastor, Emanuel United Church of Christ, Irvington, New Jersey. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California. Juan A. Figueroa, President and General Counsel, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Rep. Thomas M. Foglietta, Pennsylvania. Rep. Mark Foley, Florida. Dr. James Forbes, Jr., Senior Minister, Riverside Church of New York. Rep. Michael P. Forbes, New York. Ken Foster, Chair, Palm Beach County Commission. Rep. Jon D. Fox, Pennsylvania. Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts. Rep. Gary A. Franks, Connecticut. Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey. Rep. Dan Frisa, New York. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Chairman, Department of African American Studies, Harvard University. David Geffen, DreamWorks SKG, Los Angeles. Rep. Sam Gejdenson, Connecticut. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri, House Minority Leader. Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman, New York. Rep. Newt Gingrich, Georgia, Speaker of the House. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, New York. Gov. Parris N. Glendening, Maryland. Rep. William F. Goodling, Pennsylvania. Rep. Bart Gordon, Tennessee. Joseph E. Gore, President and Executive Director, The Kosciuszko Foundation. Sen. Slade Gorton, Washington. Dr. Alfred Gottschalk, Chancellor, Hebrew Union College. Sen. Bob Graham, Florida. Mayor Nancy Graham, West Palm Beach. Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas. Gov. Bill Graves, Kansas. E. Brandt Gustavson, President, National Religious Broadcasters. Right Rev. Ronald H. Haines, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, DC. Rep. Tony P. Hall, Ohio. Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, Indiana. Mayor Susan Hammer, San Jose. Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah. Rep. Jane Harman, California. Mayor Elihu Harris, Oakland. Rev. Linda B. Harter, Minister of Pastoral Care, Presbyterian Church of Falling Spring, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Rev. Dr. William H. Harter, Pastor, Presbyterian Church of Falling Spring, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Florida. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah. Dr. John W. Healey, S.T.D., Director, Archbishop Hughes Institute, Fordham University. Sen. Howell Heflin, Alabama. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, South Carolina. Rep. Stephen Horn, California. Dean Joseph C. Hough, Jr., Vanderbilt Divinity School. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland. Most Rev. Howard J. Hubbard, Bishop of Albany. Rep. Tim Hutchinson, Arkansas. Archbishop Iakovos, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii. Rep. Tim Johnson, South Dakota. Rep. Harry Johnston, Florida. Elaine R. Jones, Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Kansas. Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks SKG, Los Angeles. Sr. Dorothy Ann Kelly, O.S.U., President, College of New Rochelle. Rep. Sue W. Kelly, New York. Hon. Jack Kemp, Washington, DC. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts. Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly, Connecticut. Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts. Rev. Diane C. Kessler, Executive Director, Massachusetts Council of Churches. Rep. Peter T. King, New York. Rep. Gerald D. Kleczka, Wisconsin. Rev. Kenneth Kliever, Region Minister, American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest. Rep. Scott L. Klug, Wisconsin. Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, Michigan. Sen. Herbert H. Kohl, Wisconsin. Dr. Norman Lamm, President, Yeshiva University. Rev. Richard Land, President, Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Rep. Tom Lantos, California. Rep. Tom Latham, Iowa. Rep. Greg Laughlin, Texas. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey. Rep. Rick Lazio, New York. Rev. Christopher M. Leighton, Executive Director, Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies. Most Rev. William J. Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco. Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan. Rep. John Lewis, Georgia. Dr. David A. Lewis, President, Christians United for Israel. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut. Brother James A. Liguori, C.F.C., President, Iona College. Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb, Archdiocese of Mobile. Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York. Gov. Michael Lowry, Washington. Sen. Connie Mack, Florida. Dean W. Eugene March, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Bernard Marcus, President and CEO, The Home Depot, Atlanta. Rep. Frank R. Mascara, Pennsylvania. Dr. Prema Mathai-Davis, National Executive Director, YWCA of the U.S.A. Rep. Robert T. Matsui, California. H. Carl McCall, Comptroller of New York. Most Rev. Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop of Newark. Rep. Karen McCarthy, Missouri. Rep. Bill McCollum, Florida. Rep. Paul McHale, Pennsylvania. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Georgia. Msgr. John R. McMahon, St. Joan of Arc Roman Catholic Church, Boca Raton. Rep. Marty Meehan, Massachusetts. Rep. Carrie P. Meek, Florida. Hon. Thomas Patrick Melady, Former Ambassador to the Vatican, President Emeritus, Sacred Heart University. Rep. Jack Metcalf, Washington. Rep. Jan Meyers, Kansas. Hon. Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO, NAACP. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland. Rep. Dan Miller, Florida. Gov. Zell Miller, Georgia. Luis A. Miranda, President, Hispanic Federation of New York City. Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia. Rep. Constance A. Morella, Maryland. Dr. Milton D. Morris, Vice President of Research, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, Illinois. Edward J. Moskal, President, Polish American Congress. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York. Sen. Patty Murray. Washington. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York. Rep. George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington. Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, Editor in Chief, First Things. Most Rev. John J. Nevins, Bishop of the Diocese of Venice, Florida. Rep. David R. Obey, Wisconsin. Most Rev. Thomas J. O'Brien, Bishop of Phoenix. Rep. John W. Olver, Massachusetts. Andrew P. O'Rourke, County Executive, Westchester County. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey. Mario J. Paredes, Executive Director, Northeast Hispanic Catholic Center. Rep. Ed Pastor, Arizona. Gov. George E. Pataki, New York. Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, O.S.M., Professor of Social Ethics, Catholic Theological Union. Sen. Claiborne Pell, Rhode Island. Rev. Kate Penfield, President, American Baptist Churches,

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. I commend the Senators from Tennessee and Missouri for their tireless efforts on behalf of this measure and I also commend the majority leader for allowing us the opportunity to vote on this amendment. This is a truly historic debate and one that the American people would do well to note and remember. The amendment before the Senate today is very simple. It would limit future Senators and House Members to two and six terms respectively and it further outlines the procedure for Members who assume office in mid- term. This measure's simplicity, Mr. President, is only matched by its popularity in the country and its exceeding difficulty to pass. The American people have consistently indicated their overwhelming support for term limits. This support remains solid regardless of who controls the Congress or how much the issue is debated. I remain amazed that the people's representatives continually refuse to do their bidding on this issue. This is not the first time the Senate has considered this measure, nor will it likely be the last. The first proposal to limit congressional terms was offered in 1789. In the modern era, hearings on term limits were held in 1945, and the only straightforward Senate vote on a term limits amendment in history occurred in 1947. It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that Republicans controlled the Senate at that time as well. At no time since have the Democrats attempted to constructively deal with the term limits issue. It is only because of the Republican majority that we stand here today. We made the commitment to the American people in the last election to bring this measure to the floor and we are keeping our word. In the past year, we have seen several measures come and go on this floor that--in one way or another--have attempted to curb Senators' and Representatives' appetites for continual public service. All failed. Due to the utter lack of Democratic support for the concept of term limits, it appears that the measure before us today will fail as well. This is one more battle, however, in a larger--and longer--fight. In the end, I remain confident that a meaningful, binding term limits amendment will be passed by Congress and ratified by the necessary number of States. Mr. President, we live in a democracy that thrives on the free exchange of innovative ideas. These ideas are the lifeblood of our progress and it is critical to bring them into the political process and into the public arena. Term limits will ensure that the people's representatives continually bring fresh, new perspectives to public service and create a more responsible and respected government. We suffer not from a dearth of new ideas in America, Mr. President; we are lacking only in the opportunity to express them in public service. The amendment before us today will change that, and I again offer it my unqualified support.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for postponing final passage of the Health Insurance Reform Act until my return. The legislation which we will pass today is the straightforward health insurance reform which my constituents have been telling me they want for many years. The American people rejected the big-government, big-bureaucracy social experiment which the Clinton administration developed--in secrecy, I might add--in 1994. People don't want a one-size-fits-all, government-controlled health insurance system. Americans won't tolerate having a Government board deciding for them which procedures are medically necessary and appropriate. And we know from leading economists that price controls produce shortages, black markets, and reduced quality. Therefore, most Americans and those of us who serve them in Congress rejected the Clinton health care plan. Two years later, under Republican leadership, we are addressing the aspects of health insurance reform which most people outside the beltway want us to address. We will provide portability of health insurance, which will help put an end to job lock. Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. As a cancer survivor, I know personally how important this provision of health insurance reform is to patients. The legislation ensures guaranteed renewability of policies, with the exceptions of fraud and nonpayment of premiums. It will help the self- employed by increasing the deductibility of health insurance premiums. It facilitates the establishment of voluntary coalitions of small businesses and individuals to negotiate and purchase health insurance. Finally, the legislation provides tax incentives for the purchase of long-term care insurance, and tax-free treatment of accelerated life insurance benefits for those with chronic or terminal illnesses. I am especially grateful to Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy for agreeing to include genetic information in this important legislation. I cochaired a hearing with Senator Feinstein last September to examine the issue of genetic information and health insurance. We listened to patients, researchers, biomedical ethics experts, consumer advocates, and others who made the case that Congress must address this complex issue now. Why now? Because the scientific data and technology for genetic testing are here; but the social, ethical, and legal ramifications have only begun to resonate beyond the scientific community. Put another way: The science of human genetics research is on the Concorde. Yet the legal, social, and ethical debate about how to handle the information in our society has been stuck at Kitty Hawk trying to get off the ground. This legislation takes an important first step by clarifying that employer-based plans cannot deny coverage, or charge higher premiums, to individual employees based upon their health status, including health status based upon genetic information. While this may not have significant implications today, it certainly will by the end of the decade when international scientists complete the mapping of the entire human genome. There is still more which needs to be accomplished in this area, such as ensuring the privacy of medical records and prohibiting employment discrimination based upon an applicant's genetic information. Senator Hatfield, Senator Feinstein, and I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact our legislation to address these concerns. Today is an historic moment in our Nation's history. We will ensure that all Americans have access to health insurance coverage while maintaining the freedom to choose providers and benefits. We will preserve our system with the highest quality of care and continue to foster research, innovation, and competition. We will provide employers with the positive incentives to provide health insurance coverage for their employees, and provide tax equity for the self-employed to acquire insurance for themselves and their families. All of this will be accomplished under the system which has served as the bedrock of every great stride our Nation has made--not through higher taxes, more Government, and more bureaucracy, but rather through free markets and free choice.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I offer my heartfelt condolences and prayers to the family of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and to all of the other families who have lost a loved one in this terrible tragedy. It is never easy to lose someone close to you. Yet I believe those that Commerce Secretary Brown left behind--his wife Alma, his daughter Tracey, and his son Michael--can be comforted and given strength by the knowledge that Ron Brown died doing what he loved: Representing the President as Commerce Secretary and serving America by promoting American economic interests abroad. Secretary Brown will be remembered for his commitment to our democracy, his charisma, and the enthusiasm with which he embraced new ideas and challenges. I will keep Alma, Tracey, Michael, and all others who are mourning this great loss, in my thoughts and prayers during their time of grief. I would also like to offer my condolences at this time to the family of Barry L. Conrad who was accompanying Secretary Brown on his trip to the Balkans. Mr. Conrad was the founder of the Barrington Group, a dynamic hotel company in Miami, and had previously headed Burger King's U.S. franchise operation. In addition to being a successful businessman, Mr. Conrad was a very prominent and well-respected member of the south Florida community. This is a great loss not only for the family and friends of Mr. Conrad but for the entire State of Florida. I am praying for the Conrad family, and all others who are mourning as a result of this tragedy.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I wish to apologize for my absence during consideration of the conference report to S. 735 due to the passing of my father. I believe that this is an essential piece of legislation to address the current deficiencies in our judicial system which made it that much easier for the tragedy in Oklahoma City to take place. In addition, this bill makes much-needed revisions to the current habeas corpus system in our country.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. In acknowledgement of this responsibility, Congress has provided $200,000,000 and possibly as much as $300,000,000 to expedite Everglades restoration activities, which will include acquisition of the highest priority lands needed to improve water storage and water quality critical to the restoration effort. This unprecedented commitment of $200,000,000 will be provided to the Secretary of Interior to either carry out the restoration activities or to provide funding to the State of Florida or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out restoration activities. Congress does not intend for these funds to supplant any previous funds committed to any agency of the Federal Government or the State of Florida for the purpose of Everglades restoration, including the commitment to fund STA 1E, a component of the Everglades Restoration Project.

Mr. MACK. The State of Florida has made extraordinary efforts to address the complex problems of the region and to restore this precious resource. Because south Florida is home to 7 of the 10 fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the Nation, we are at a critical crossroad in the Everglades restoration. Together the State of Florida and the Federal Government can continue their developing partnership to consummate Everglades restoration.

Mr. MACK. The health of the Everglades ecosystem is critically endangered. The same American spirit of ingenuity and adventure that led us to the Everglades at the turn of the century must now be called upon to save this extraordinary resource that is so emblematic of the American character. The Everglades has taught us that a strong economy and healthy environment are not mutually exclusive.

Mr. MACK. I and my esteemed colleague Senator Graham rise today to congratulate this Congress for its foresight and commitment to one of the most important restoration efforts in our Nation's history, the restoration of the south Florida ecosystem, better known as the Everglades. Under section 506 of the 1996 farm bill, the United States has made a historical commitment to this unique national treasure.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there was a recent ``Nightline'' program that dealt with a new book on the market that, I believe, is entitled ``Blood Sport.'' It is a book that was written by an individual by the name of James Stewart, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. One of the books he wrote was entitled ``Den of Thieves.'' He has an impeccable set of credentials. My understanding of the genesis of this book is that Susan Thomases, an attorney and close personal friend of the Clintons, went to Mr. Stewart and suggested it for the purpose of, as my colleague from Louisiana had indicated, trying to come to a nonpolitical conclusion. So maybe where I ought to start in summing up what this ``Blood Sport'' is all about is going to the last comments I had intended to make which had to do with the conclusion that is reached in Mr. Stewart's book. I am going to have some quotes. The quotes are going to come actually from ``Nightline,'' not necessarily from the book, because Ted Koppel, in essence, asked Mr. Stewart what was the conclusion that he drew as a result of doing this book. He said it was ``a study in the acquisition and wielding of power and, in the end, a study of the arrogance of power--the things they can do and get away with as an elected official and then how honest and candid they are when questioned about it.'' It is interesting that at the time when there seems to be more and more interest developing in the country with respect to what went on with Whitewater, we had this ``Nightline'' show again the other night, this new book ``Blood Sport''--and now Time magazine apparently is going to be doing a series for 3 weeks about Whitewater--that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle now seem to be an extension of the White House strategy to deal with the issue. All through this process they have delayed, they have misinformed, they have done everything possible, frankly, to move it to a point where they would be able to say ``this is political.'' So what are we supposed to do? Is this because this is a political year, we are supposed to stop the pursuit of truth? Again, the charge that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opened themselves up for is that they are now an extension of the activities of the White House. They are going to do whatever they can to keep us from moving forward on this issue. In his book, Mr. Stewart kind of outlined what he saw as the mindsets of the Clintons with respect to Whitewater. Again he said on ``Nightline'' that they had ``an attitude bordering on negligence from the beginning,'' that they had the ``belief that someone else will take care of us because of our power as high elected officials in Arkansas.'' They had ``a willingness to accept favors from those who were regulated by the State.'' I am sure that the chairman remembers the hearings that we had with Beverly Bassett Schaffer, who was an individual who was appointed to a position of securities commissioner, I believe, in Arkansas and who received a phone call from Mrs. Clinton, acting as an attorney for Madison, asking the question, ``Who should I send some papers with regard to the preferred stock issue, who should I send those to in your office?'' Mind you, there has been a lot said from the First Lady's perspective that she was trying to do everything possible to make sure that there was no impression created that she would be using her position for her personal gain. I ask you, if there really was a concern about this, why would you risk shattering everything that you were trying to accomplish by making a phone call down to the commissioner herself, and say, ``Who should I send it to in your office?'' It makes absolutely no sense. On some of the basic underlying issues, again, author Stewart flatly contradicts Hillary Clinton. He said, ``It is simply not true'' that the Clintons had no active role in the Whitewater investment. To the contrary, Mrs. Clinton ``singlehandedly took control of the investment'' in 1986 once the McDougal empire began to crumble. She handles everything from loan renewals to correspondence. She also had possession of all the records, many of which, by the way, are now missing. Mr. Stewart points out that the Clintons are likely guilty of at least one Federal crime, the same Federal crime for which the McDougals are now on trial. Mind you, the reason I did this this way today was that I wanted to use an unbiased source, if you will. The friends on the other side of the aisle say we are being political about this. I am responding to both a book and to a series of articles that will take place, the first of which was in Time magazine this week, and ``Nightline.'' I mean, this is what he is saying, that the crime that I was referring to a moment ago is knowingly inflating the value of their share of Whitewater investment to a financial institution. In a 1987 financial disclosure statement, Mrs. Clinton listed the value of their share of Whitewater as nearly double the bank's recent estimates, and she did this to get more money to shore up a failing investment. If that is proven, that is in fact is fraud. There also are some interesting comments with respect to the Foster suicide. Stewart believes that the reasons Mr. Foster listed in his suicide note do not actually reflect the true nature of all that was bothering him at the time, and notably again the author said there were things ``so serious that he''--Foster--``will not dare write them down.'' Those things involve--again, this is what the author is suggesting--those things involve the First Lady, Whitewater, and ethical violations which put Web Hubbell in a Federal prison. Mr. Stewart also believes, as I do, that it is entirely possible that the billing records that mysteriously turned up in the White House residence were formerly in Vince Foster's office. If that is so, one or more felonies have been committed, and it is just a question of figuring out who the guilty parties are. With respect to damage control efforts, according, again, to the author, Mr. Stewart, after White House staff had introduced the notion of cooperating fully with the investigators, Mrs. Clinton interrupted and said--and I am quoting him now as he is quoting here--``I am not going to have people pouring over our documents. After all, we are the President.'' The suggestion here is that by virtue of the grandeur of power of their office, they should not have to endure the experience of legitimate investigation. In essence, it says to me that the First Lady believes she and the President are above the law. A moment ago I read the conclusion--I am going to state it again--of what Mr. Stewart's book is about. He said it was ``a study in the acquisition and wielding of power and, in the end, a study of the arrogance of power--the things that they can do and get away with as an elected official, and then how honest and candid they are when questioned about it.'' If any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening, I would ask you to ponder the final words of Mr. Stewart--I believe an unbiased source, a source that Mrs. Clinton and her friend Susan Thomases believes to be evenhanded and capable of finding out the truth about their involvement in Whitewater. He said, ``The truth is important in our society. Just as important in our society, I do not think that you can put a price tag on these things.'' And then he goes on to say that if you feel the investigation has been harsh or nasty, the reason for that--again quoting him--``is because the truth was never honored in the first place.'' So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is time to quit filibustering. It is time to stop being an extension of the White House strategy. It is time to allow the American people to get the facts and to let them draw their own conclusions as to who is right and who is wrong. I yield the floor.